Paramount Says 28 Day Delay On Redbox Makes No Sense; Doesn't Cannibalize DVD Sales

from the good-for-them dept

While some of the Big 6 studios have been incredibly anti-Redbox, Viacom's Paramount has always been the most reasonable towards the DVD-rental kiosk provider. So it really comes as little surprise that Paramount has announced that, after testing delayed movie releases through Redbox it sees absolutely no reason to keep delaying such releases and instead will offer new release movies on Redbox at the same time the DVD goes on sale:

"There were two conclusions we came to," said Dennis Maguire, president of Paramount Home Entertainment. "There hasn't been a cannibalization of DVD sales from Redbox, and Redbox was allowing us to expand our business and ultimately make more money" than if the studio held back its DVDs to Redbox for a period of time.

Of course, this is exactly what many people said when studios like Warner Bros., Universal and Fox demanded the 28 day release, but it's nice to at least see Paramount actually looking at the data and realizing that Redbox isn't the evil destroyer of Hollywood that some of its competitors have made it out to be.

Filed Under: delays, dvds, rentals
Companies: paramount, redbox, viacom

Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix

from the getting-desperate? dept

You may recall that, at the end of March, Warner Bros. studios did a new deal with Blockbuster that seemed likely to confuse the hell out of consumers. That's because Warner Bros., in its backwards-looking wisdom, had already done deals with both Netflix and Redbox to not make new release movies available to rent until 28 days after their release. There is no good reason for this, other than it pisses off customers all around, and makes them less interested or inclined to bother watching Warner Bros. movies (hint to WB: you have competitors).

But the Blockbuster deal seemed confusing -- because most consumers wouldn't be following these silly deals and wouldn't understand why a movie had been "released" but wasn't available via their favorite rental service. Apparently, Blockbuster's answer to all this is to mock Netflix and Redbox for not carrying new releases. Seriously. Reader Daylyn sends in the following ad he recently saw that points out that Netflix and Redbox don't carry this movie: Apparently, this is all part of Blockbuster's new WB-partnered advertising campaign: "hey, the movie studios screwed over our competitors! rent from us!" Looking around, it appears a few others have noticed this campaign as well, which went into place quite quickly after the WB deal was announced.

Filed Under: delays, dvds, rentals
Companies: blockbuster, netflix, redbox, warner brothers

Netflix, Warner Bros., Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Movie Window

from the pissing-off-customers-left-and-right dept

Warner Bros. has been busy getting both Netflix and Redbox to agree to delay renting new release DVDs for 28 days, in the misguided belief that this will get more people to buy the DVDs. While Netflix has tried to spin this as benefiting customers it appears plenty of customers see otherwise. Specifically, at least one customer has filed a class action lawsuit against both Warner Bros. and Netflix, alleging that this is restraint of trade and has decreased the value of a Netflix subscription (thanks to Eric for sending this over). It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will get very far, but it certainly suggests that at least some Netflix customers are none too pleased with this move, despite Netflix's claims.

Filed Under: class action, delays, movies, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

Even Senators Hated NBC Universal's Olympic Coverage

from the ouch dept

With NBC Universal already under a fair amount of scrutiny by the Senate, as it seeks to merge with Comcast, it seems that it's antiquated broadcast schedule of the recent Olympics isn't helping matters. Senator Herb Kohl apparently sent a letter to NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker, asking him to explain why NBC Universal's Olympic coverage was so incredibly lame. More specifically, he questioned if NBC's incredibly restrictive online Olympics video (much more restricted than two years ago at the Beijing summer Olympics) is a preview of "what is to come with respect to TV programming shown on the Internet."

While it may be a bit of a stretch to connect the two, it does seem like particularly poor timing and bad strategy by NBC Universal officials. Just as they're trying to convince the Senate (and others) that of course their content will be widely available in a post-merger world, they thought it would make sense to massively restrict the content shown during the Olympics -- including requiring viewers to first prove they had cable TV access from certain cable providers? And no one at NBC Universal thought that the loud complaints all over the internet about the ridiculous process and restrictions might wake up someone in the Senate?

Filed Under: coverage, delays, herb kohl, jeff zucker, limitations, merger, olympics, real-time, restrictions
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century

from the wow dept

This is just bizarre. As NBC continues its screwed up process of broadcasting the Olympics by delaying the actual telecast of important events until prime time, apparently a bunch of folks are pissed off that real news sources are reporting on what's actually happened. They're targeting the wrong thing, of course. If they're upset that the news is being reported before it's being shown on TV, the real problem is NBC's decision not to show stuff live on TV or to webcast it for those who would prefer to see it live. But people are taking out their anger on newspapers who are giving live reports of what's actually happening:

"Could you please ask the editor of the front Web page to not name the winners within the headlines/sub-headlines?" asked Ken Waters of Phoenix.  Matt Gooch of Harrisonburg, Va. said he was disappointed when The Times reported the results of the men's downhill before NBC showed the event.  "This is not Taliban news, nor TARP news, or even Paula Jones type news," Gooch said.  "There is no meaning to this except the anticipation and suspense that sports viewers feel watching the event live.  Please help me understand why your organization needs to spoil the experience."

Other news organizations are hearing similar complaints.  Liz Spayd, managing editor of The Washington Post, told a reader who asked for a spoiler alert yesterday that, "It's an issue we're trying to evaluate right now."  She said that it's a tricky question "for a news site whose greatest value is to break news. We don't want to be the game spoilers, but when big news happens -- an unexpected gold for the U.S., for example, we want it prominently visible on the site."

Thankfully, the NY Times "has no intention of changing its approach," recognizing that it's a news organization, rather than a business to prop up NBC's ridiculous broadcast scheduling choices.

This does highlight a larger issue that I've been noticing lately. In our more "real-time" society, especially with things like Facebook and Twitter, the idea that you can hide from "spoilers" is increasingly arcane. Now, for most broadcasters (other than NBC, apparently) this should represent good news: as it will drive more people to watch content live, rather than trying to save it for later, since they'll want to avoid spoilers ahead of time. In this case, though, NBC has apparently decided that it knows better than to enable such things.

Of course, plenty of people are smart enough to realize just how badly NBC is managing this, falsely believing that people will just sit and wait until NBC decides to show what it wants, rather than letting people actuallyfollow what's happening. News reports are popping up highlighting how many people are pissed off at NBC for the ridiculous decision to hide live events in a real-time world. With the end result being that NBC's brand is being dragged through the mud for not understanding how to broadcast a sporting event in a real-time world:

"In the age of DVRs, Hulu, and mobile phone scoreboards, the pointlessness of NBC's broadcast strategy -- Olympics and otherwise -- has never been more obvious. People don't eat dinner during Nightly News then settle in for three hours of prime-time network programming anymore. They want things when they want them, not when NBC wants them."

NBC's bizarre reasoning for this is that it wants to put all the "highlight" moments during prime time when it can sell the most advertising. But, apparently no one there thought that perhaps they could show the actual events live and then use prime time for a nice summary of what happened that day at the Olympics. In that way, they might actually get more viewers. If you ever wanted the epitome of a company still living in the last century, it appears to be NBC Universal.

Filed Under: coverage, delays, olympics, real-time
Companies: nbc universal

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?

Filed Under: delays, kiosks, movies, releases, rentals, windows
Companies: netflix, redbox, warner bros.

Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers

from the assuming-you-didn't-want-to-see-that-movie-when-it-was-released dept

With Netflix caving in to Warner Bros. and agreeing to delay offering DVDs for 28 days after release in order to get movies to stream online, it certainly pissed off a bunch of Netflix subscribers. But, you've apparently got it all wrong. A Netflix exec is now trying to explain how the deal is pro-customer because it will keep demand down for the DVDs, meaning that when they finally do come out, you may have a better chance to rent them. Seriously:

The most practical reason is that the savings derived from this deal enable us to be in stock completely on day 29. Remember that we're a subscription service and the way that you manage the economics of a subscription service is to manage the demand of any disc, depending on the economics of the disc. In the case of the most expensive disc, which in this case is a Warner Bros. disc, purchased through a 3rd party, those discs were out of stock for far longer than 29 days for most Netflix subscribers.

So what were able to is create a deal with them that gave them a little open running room in terms of creating a sell-through window ahead of rental, for us, and hopefully that they'll find enough value in that it'll extend to other retailers and other studios will take note and it'll extend across other studios as well. The net savings derived from technically creating a better customer experience have been redeployed in additional streaming content for all customers.

I'm still trying to parse this, but it really does sound like he's saying that Netflix couldn't handle the demand for new releases before, so by getting rid of them entirely, it may be able to handle them on the 29th day, since fewer people will care about renting that movie then. Now, you could claim that's a better customer experience if you ignore the 28 days in which no one on Netflix can rent the movie (though they can get it elsewhere). But if you realize that you're now taking away the ability to serve all of your customers for nearly a month at the point when their demand is likely to be the highest... well, that doesn't seem very customer friendly at all.

Filed Under: delays, dvds, rentals, spin, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

Book Publishers Starting To Delay eBook Releases -- Taking Bad Ideas From Hollywood

from the why-not-just-point-them-directly-to-the-pirate-bay? dept

It's no secret that many book publishers are somewhat uncomfortable with the ebook market, fearing that it will cannibalize the existing book market, with lower expected prices or (gasp!) piracy. Still, you would think they would know better than to repeat the mistakes of other industries. Copycense alerts us to the news that some ebook publishers are copying the movie studios with their obsession with windowed releases and are delaying the release of ebooks by as much as four months after the release of the hardcover book. Amazon's response to the news sums up why this is a huge mistake:

"Authors get the most publicity at launch and need to strike while the iron is hot. If readers can't get their preferred format at that moment, they may buy a different book or just not buy a book at all."

Or they might just get an unauthorized digital copy. Hard to understand businesses that think it's reasonable to not offer customers what they want (especially when they're willing to pay for it).

Filed Under: delays, ebooks, publishing, windows

AP Wants To Charge For Scoops

from the not-quite-the-crystal-ball dept

The Associated Press is considering charging an extra fee for early access to its stories. The AP's Tom Curley believes that news organizations like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, would be willing to pay a premium for a 20-30 minute head start on scoops. Now, lest some of you compare this product with Techdirt's own Crystal Ball offering, there is a key difference. AP's product depends on the timeliness of its stories, whereas Techdirt's stories are more focused on analysis -- we do not focus on breaking stories, but when we do, we do not hold them back for the Crystal Ball subscribers to view them. In any case, while this may sound like an enlightened idea for the AP, I'm not really sure it makes much sense. Currently, all of AP's licensees get all of the scoops at the same time, off the same wire. With this system, what the AP is doing is effectively weakening that existing product, and then creating a "new" product that, when the dust settles, is really what most of the customers were getting in the first place. It's not that the scoops are released 20-30 minutes sooner, but rather, if you don't pay the premium, you get the stories you would normally get later. Now, there's nothing wrong with this model, for example, stock quote services have long been able to charge more for real-time information, but for the AP to market this as a premium service seems like disingenuous marketing. Furthermore, given the AP's track record for trying to claim ownership over the news that it reports (like creating a DRM system for news), what happens when the now-hamstrung AP wire is scooped by a reporter who was tipped off by AP's own product?

Filed Under: business models, delays, journalism, news, scoops
Companies: associated press

Ubisoft Says It's Delaying A PC Game Due To Piracy; But That Makes No Sense

from the a-little-logic,-please dept

Ubisoft, the video game company that has a history of doing exactly the wrong things in response to unauthorized sharing of its video games, is at it again. A bunch of readers have sent in some odd quotes from Ubisoft exec, Michael de Plater, who blames PC game file sharing for a delayed release of the new game EndWar on the PC platform:

To be honest, if PC wasn't pirated to hell and back, there'd probably be a PC version coming out the same day as the other two. But at the moment, if you release the PC version, essentially what you're doing is letting people have a free version that they rip off instead of a purchased version. Piracy's basically killing PC."

Now, Plater may believe that, but it's hard to square up with reality. The video gaming experience on a console is quite different than on a PC. And you'd be hard pressed to find a serious console owner who would focus on playing a good game on their PC rather than on the console. You could potentially make the argument that if the game really sucked some might test it out on the PC and decide it's not worth paying for -- but unless he's saying the game sucks, it's hard to take the claim seriously.

Filed Under: delays, endwar, michael de plater, piracy, video games
Companies: ubisoft