Hollywood's war with Redbox expanding to Netflix.

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
GOD I wish a Redbox would be put up in the little shopping area that's only like, 500 feet away from my house. Is that shit franchise or something? I could make a killing. People in my area are desperate for something like that close by. (new build area, commercial stuff not established yet).

Screw redbox. Why don't you go and open your own video store.

Why? He could probably easily make a deal with a business to house the machine, while he manages it. I'm sure it's pretty simple and easy to setup.

he described his town of only having 20K people, I doubt they have a business that sees 15K a week as redbox likes to see.

Plus with such a small town he can play up the community angle.

I live in a city of ~31,000. The surrounding area totals about ~92,000. There are 8 of them within ~20-30 miles of me(which includes small surrounding cities). I think they could probably put one there, and it would do fine. The original idea of Redbox was to increase traffic to McDonalds before Coinstar bought it out. If people knew about the Redbox kiosk, it would increase traffic to that area including traffic that would have otherwise gone some where else. I'm sure they evaluate smaller cities on a case by case basis when requested by customers.

 

[Vic]

The only ones with the unreasonable senses of entitlement here are Hollywood. Imagine if some technology company patented pi in perpetuity. People would be outraged. Yet in the literary sense, Hollywood has already done this a dozen times over.

 

[arkcom]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

What does redbox have to do with internet customers?

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

I blame them for trying to punish customers for their lack of trying to keep up with technology and customer trends. If you don't want the customers to own the content, offer fair rental/usage fees. If you offer ownership, don't try to dick them over when they want their product to last for a while by using a backup. I think revenue sharing makes sense, but they way they're approaching it is not to Redbox's advantage so they're balking at it. Maybe they want too much of the revenue, only the companies know.

 

[totalcommand]

If they get rid of RedBox and Netflix (both of which i use) I will go to torrent.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: oogabooga

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

Unreasonable senses of entitlement? Sure there are some who have outrageous expectations, but most have a reasonable and fair expectation - Like owning whatever they buy and being able to play it on whatever device(s) they own.

Rather then fighting consumers and trying to gimp their access to content - find the next model by which to make money rather then extend a model that isn't going to continue working.

I stand by what I wrote. I'm talking about just this situation right here, nothing further. I think most people would agree that studios should get a cut of each rental. It's only fair and does not "gimp" access.

As for changing their model, I'd be interested in what such change could be? They make digital content. There is no other possible model other than to rely on people voluntarily choosing to pay for a product they know they can obtain for free through the internet. And those who choose to voluntarily pay, it has to be at least sufficient enough to cover production costs. I don't know what the financial analysis they've done regarding the growth of Redbox & Netflix, I can assume it's not pretty.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: arkcom

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

What does redbox have to do with internet customers?

Sorry, change that to "people who use the internet to bitch about everything"

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

I blame them for trying to punish customers for their lack of trying to keep up with technology and customer trends. If you don't want the customers to own the content, offer fair rental/usage fees. If you offer ownership, don't try to dick them over when they want their product to last for a while by using a backup. I think revenue sharing makes sense, but they way they're approaching it is not to Redbox's advantage so they're balking at it. Maybe they want too much of the revenue, only the companies know.

Then we are in agreement.

Copy protection was built into VHS, but few complained about it because internet piracy was not around yet. There was no possible way to back up a laserdisc, and still really no one complained. Why now? That's rhetorical, as I know someone here is itching to answer 😉


Look, all I really say is I understand the difficult decisions studios face, and they're not always going to reach the perfect solution immediately, but over time they should. But the internet always seems to push everything to the very extreme, like the link here saying they're creating a "war" against Redbox :roll:

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Can anyone blame the studios? All companies that produce digital content clearly see the writing on the wall. Whether or not they piss off a few internet customers who have unreasonable senses of entitlement, I can't see making much of a difference in the bigger picture.

I blame them for trying to punish customers for their lack of trying to keep up with technology and customer trends. If you don't want the customers to own the content, offer fair rental/usage fees. If you offer ownership, don't try to dick them over when they want their product to last for a while by using a backup. I think revenue sharing makes sense, but they way they're approaching it is not to Redbox's advantage so they're balking at it. Maybe they want too much of the revenue, only the companies know.

Then we are in agreement.

Copy protection was built into VHS, but few complained about it because internet piracy was not around yet. There was no possible way to back up a laserdisc, and still really no one complained. Why now? That's rhetorical, as I know someone here is itching to answer 😉


Look, all I really say is I understand the difficult decisions studios face, and they're not always going to reach the perfect solution immediately, but over time they should. But the internet always seems to push everything to the very extreme, like the link here saying they're creating a "war" against Redbox :roll:

They definitely get it wrong sometimes. Seriously, if they would fix what they pay the actors, I think that would be one good step towards reducing their costs(my head hurts seeing what they make for shitty movies). Plus they have huge budgets for shitty movies. If you know the movie is going to be corny, you can cut some corners.

 

[episodic]

I doubt that the rental business redbox is in is 'super' lucrative. I bet that the average rental life of a DVD is notoriously short. I mean how many scratched/ruined dvd's have you guys been through in your life from rental sources? I know they make a profit, but I doubt that it is super duper magically profitable.

 

[sohcrates]

i've got 6 redboxes within 3 miles of my house. including 2 that are a 10 minute walk. i rented two redboxes just last night.

the business model is epic. $1 per night cannot be competed with. yes, the selection is slightly limited, but i haven't been to blockbuster in 3 years.

 

[shortylickens]

My position:
I just wont be able to see things right when they come out. Last movie I saw in theaters was Star Trek. Before that it was Gladiator in late 99 or early 2000 (I forget which). If my Star Trek experience was any indication I'm not missing out on anything at the theater. I can wait until it hits home video. And if home video gets delayed another month I can deal with that too. I'm sick and tired of shelling out lots of cash for crappy movies. I'll wait until they are a buck or part of my monthly rental plan which, based on my usage, works out to about a dollar fifty. Or streaming for free.
But I wont be paying 10 dollars at the cinema anymore, and I wont pay 25 for the DVD or 40 for the Blu-ray, and I damn sure wont pay 6 bucks for a rental.
If they dont like it they can start paying their actors more reasonably and possibly cut their losses, as mentioned above.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
GOD I wish a Redbox would be put up in the little shopping area that's only like, 500 feet away from my house. Is that shit franchise or something? I could make a killing. People in my area are desperate for something like that close by. (new build area, commercial stuff not established yet).

Screw redbox. Why don't you go and open your own video store.

Why? He could probably easily make a deal with a business to house the machine, while he manages it. I'm sure it's pretty simple and easy to setup.

he described his town of only having 20K people, I doubt they have a business that sees 15K a week as redbox likes to see.

Plus with such a small town he can play up the community angle.

😕

I live in a town of ~12.5k and we have five Redboxes.

 

[frostedflakes]

I think the studios' demands are pretty ridiculous, but unfortunately they kind of hold most of the cards. Redbox and Netflix will probably end up having to concede to the studios.

Revenue sharing wouldn't necessarily be a bad business model if Hollywood was willing to reduce the wholesale price of rental DVDs for these companies. Keep in mind that video rental stores don't pay the same price that we do for DVDs, they need to buy special "for rental" discs that have a much higher cost. A decade ago when the studios worked out a revenue sharing model with Blockbuster, part of the deal was that the cost to purchase the DVDs for Blockbuster was reduced significantly. But if Hollywood expects Redbox and Netflix to pay $60+ for a DVD licensed for rental *and* share in the revenue, they're nuts. One or the other would be acceptable, but not both.

 

[Beanie46]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
I think most people would agree that studios should get a cut of each rental. It's only fair and does not "gimp" access.

I'm not trying to be contentious, but why would you think that? And if you can actually make that case, then you need to contact the auto manufacturers, they could surely use the cut from rentals of their vehicles at Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, etc.

I say that because that seems to be about the best equivalent business model out there, and I don't think Ford, GM, etc., get a cut from Avis, Hertz, etc. (The car is sold to the rental company which then rents it out repeatedly to people, just like with DVDs via Netflix or Redbox.)

 

[tk149]

Contract between two companies. Sucks for Netflix/Redbox, but the movie studios have the power. OTOH, I wonder if SALES of DVD's would DECREASE if Netflix/Redbox chose not to carry one studio's movies. Word of mouth is worth a lot. I will buy a DVD that I rented, if I think I will watch it again or want instant access to it.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
I'm not trying to be contentious, but why would you think that? And if you can actually make that case, then you need to contact the auto manufacturers, they could surely use the cut from rentals of their vehicles at Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, etc.

I say that because that seems to be about the best equivalent business model out there, and I don't think Ford, GM, etc., get a cut from Avis, Hertz, etc. (The car is sold to the rental company which then rents it out repeatedly to people, just like with DVDs via Netflix or Redbox.)

Many of the big car rental companies started as subsidaries of the auto makers. National was owned by GM and Hertz was owned by Ford.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: Newbian
I am still waiting for the Pornbox to be installed near every Redbox. 🙁

Why? It's free online.

So are movies...😉

free, stealing..whatever makes you happy, I guess.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: tk149
Contract between two companies. Sucks for Netflix/Redbox, but the movie studios have the power. OTOH, I wonder if SALES of DVD's would DECREASE if Netflix/Redbox chose not to carry one studio's movies. Word of mouth is worth a lot. I will buy a DVD that I rented, if I think I will watch it again or want instant access to it.

Blockbuster fucked up that model when they decided to stop taking the rental fee from the price to buy the dvd/game.