Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'

from the you-do-what-to-do-what-now? dept

For all the lip service the MPAA has been paying to the claim that it loves tech innovations and wants to work with the tech industry to build cool things, why is it that every new "innovation" the industry comes up with only seems to make life complicated for people in ways that make no sense at all? For example, we recently talked about Warner Bros. ridiculous disc-to-digital offering in which people who want a digital version of movies they have on DVD can drive to a store where someone will rip the movie for them. In a world where the ability to rip your DVDs in the comfort of your own home is commonplace, that makes no sense at all.

I think we can add to this "huh?" discussion: the new effort from Fox, in which the studio will be putting up giant murals in malls to try to make it "easier" for you to buy DVDs. Here's how it works according to Deadline.com:

As part of an exclusive one-year partnership with Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, the malls will have a wall with cover art and QR codes for many the studio’s home videos. People who want to buy the movie or TV show can download a smartphone app called Fox Movie Mall, available for both iPhones and Android devices. It will enable them to scan an image and go directly to a Web site to complete the purchase for a DVD or Blu-ray disc shipped free to their home.

So, yeah. You go to a mall (physical) and download a special app (digital) which you then use to scan a silly QR code (digital) to be sent to a website (digital) to order a DVD (physical) to be shipped to your home (physical). There are a bunch of ridiculous extra steps here and I can't figure out how any of this makes sense. If you have people in a mall already and you're trying to get people to buy physical product, why not just let them scan and pick up the physical product? If you're focusing on the digital components, why require a specialized app that no one's going to want to download, and then not offer a digital version of the film?

Fox execs claim that they expect this new effort "to reach as many 60 million people over the next four months with the mall wallscapes." I guess that depends on your interpretation of "reach." If you mean 60 million people may walk by and ignore these murals, perhaps that's true. Though that suggests Fox must be spending a ridiculous amount of money to get these murals pretty much everywhere. If you mean that 60 million people will actually pay any attention at all to this convoluted system to buy an obsolete product fewer and fewer people actually want, well, then someone's done a miscalculation somewhere.

Seriously: how hard is it for folks in Hollywood to ask this simple question: "Would I ever use this product that I'm developing?" If the answer is "not in a million years" perhaps it's time to move on to building products that consumers actually want.

Filed Under: dvds, malls, murals, promotions, sales
Companies: fox

Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers

from the chat-away dept

Apparently, a mall in California tried to put in place rules that barred people in the mall from approaching those they did not know and talking to them about anything other than shopping in the mall. It specifically disallowed:

"approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests."

The goal was to prevent pitches and sermons and such -- and it was even used to make a "citizen's arrest" of a minister who was preaching at the mall. However, a court has rejected this rule, as a violation of free speech rights. Now, my first reaction to this was to wonder why a private corporation could be found violating free speech rights -- as the US Constitution only says that the government may not limit free speech -- private corporations can, indeed, limit speech. However, this was an issue having to do with California law, where the state constitution is a bit broader:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right.

It may seem ridiculous to try to limit speech within a mall, as noted by the following exchange during a deposition in the case:

"If you're going to talk about any other subject (other than the mall) ... then you're prohibited from going up to strangers and speaking to them, is that correct?" he was asked by a Snatchko attorney.

"That's not correct," Farnam testified. "It doesn't prohibit you. It just means you have to come in and fill out the application for third-party access for noncommercial" speech.

What if, the attorney postulated, he is excited about the Super Bowl and says to a stranger, "Hey, hope you're supporting the Patriots," or "Hope you're supporting the Giants this week." Would that violate the rules? he asked.

"You can go in and again fill out a third-party access, if that's what a person chooses to do," said Farnam

As the Sacramento Bee noted in discussing this case:

Weather is a no-no, unless one is intuitive enough to observe how it may be affecting the size of the crowd at the mall. Teenagers who use the common areas for social gatherings, not necessarily limited to contemporaries they already know, are out of luck. Should someone stop you and ask directions to Sutter-Roseville Medical Center, you would be well advised to blow them off, lest your humanitarian instincts lead you astray.

However, in the end, I still find this troubling. If the mall wants to have such a ridiculous policy, with such ridiculous results, why should the government stop them from doing so? I would imagine the mall has other rules for determining who is and who is not allowed to patronize the mall. What's wrong with letting the mall create such a silly policy?

Filed Under: california, free speech, malls