MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

A Window On The WB/Blockbuster Deal

I was interested to see that some were confused/irritated by WB’s choice to do a deal with Blockbuster inside of the 28-day window they have now imposed on NetFlix and Redbox.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the studio’s long relationship with Blockbuster. And it has nothing to do with dealing like it’s 1999.
What is left out of the press release is the obvious… WB has gotten Blockbuster to do what NetFlix and Redbox would not do… pay a rate per rental and not just negotiate a deal to buy product for whatever price.
It’s not the innovation of NetFlix or Redbox they are fighting… it’s Price Point.
Essentially, WB is continuing the work of creating windows for Home Entertainment… however under attack windows for theatrical release may be.
What WB is signaling – and other studios will follow – is that after 28 days in post-theatrical, everything is the long tail… negligible revenues (aside from the wholesale DVD sales needed to fill the pipeline). But the heat of demand is over. That is the point at which they are fine with everyone buying discs at wholesale prices and distributing them as widely as they like with no additional revenue for the studio.
Until titles hit that that 28 day window, buy it or pay the studio a per-rental price.
Presumably, the long view of this is a second tier of by-the-month rental or VOD that costs a few dollars more in order to have the benefit of immediate access to new post-theatrical materials, passing the cost of paying the studios on to the consumer.
The next turn is getting Redbox to do $2.50 rentals in the first 28 days of release and $1 after, the extra $1.50 per rental (or at least $1) going to the studios.
As usual, the media is so busy thinking about technology and The Future that the basic economic component is simply ignored.
In this case, Blockbuster is a business under enough pressure to eat some profits in order to have a competitive advantage against their biggest competitors.
This deal will probably be on the table for any major dvd distributor that wants it… just as the Redbox deal has been repeated with NetFlix. But it is also possible that the studios see an advantage – and they would be right to see it this way – in narrowing the number of companies offering premium/early access to their product. In my opinion, we continue to move towards a post-theatrical world in which you pay flat rates to each studio for various levels of access. So as soon as technology allows VOD to be the standard, studios will flip to it as quickly as possible… without any of the retailers… or with much more studio-positive deals than we have seen in the past. It really depends how much more hard-DVD retails slips in the next years.
But I digress a bit…
With Wal-Mart, expect it to go something like this: Studios prime the retail pump by offering lower prices for new DVD titles. Even though Wal-Mart is wanting to get rid of the retail space for these DVDs, this keeps new titles in the stores. This is followed by a set discount 28 days after DVD release… say, from $15 to $9.99… Only At Wal-Mart. On the first day of release, like Blockbuster, Wal-Mart starts streaming the films on Vudu… or whatever it will be called… Wal-Du. But there will be some kind of per-stream amount coming back to the studios, not as much as Blockbuster will pay because f Wal-Mart’s increased value as a retailer.
Meanwhile, I wouldn’t expect the studios to allow either Redbox – which will have to go there – or NetFlix to stream these titles until an even later window… maybe 90 days… maybe 9 months, not wanting to interfere with the pay cable windows.
I’m not sure that adding more windows to Home Entertainment is really going to work. But as long as the studios don’t get too greedy, they can control the marketplace’s evolution. Essentially, we are going back to a hybrid of the old VHS days, pushing away from the idea of it being a sell-thru market, but still hoping there will be significant sell-thru and supporting that notion (and the businesses that support it) in any way possible.
People forget that VOD is price-positive for the studios… relatively insignificant delivery costs and the very real likelihood of all but eliminating the retailing middle men who have been taking their cut since VHS started rolling out. The problem with VOD is pricing… especially when balanced against flat rate monthly rental businesses and $1 rentals.
VOD is not the challenge. The challenge is finding price levels that will inspire spending and will not inspire piracy, which is beyond being stoppable for those who are motivated to engage in it.
So this is just a windows play. And sadly, it makes some sense for post-theatrical. What’s scary is the notion that the next step – already happening – is that this kind of windowing will push closer and closer to the theatrical window with the notion that, as with the 28 day DVD window, demand for a 56 day theatrical window is some firm a market that the DVD window encroachment will not matter. But that is – and has been – a different entry…

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “A Window On The WB/Blockbuster Deal”

  1. Eric says:

    I suspect there’s some benefit to keeping Blockbuster alive, as well, so that the rental business is not dominated by fewer and fewer companies.

  2. hcat says:

    Doesn’t the demise of Blockbuster give the Ma and Pa and regional chains a step up? It might actually increase competition.

  3. The Big Perm says:

    I’d think at this point, with the DVD vending machines and Netflix, the Mom and Pops are gone for good, unless they’re already established and have a REALLY good hook. Back in the day I liked a number of places in DC, Baltimore and NY because their selections were insane. But Netflix has all of that shit now…and even if they don’t I can go on the internet and buy it from Hong Kong directly.

  4. hcat says:

    Perm- No, I don’t see any popping up overnight if Blockbuster goes under, but also consider there are plenty of renters out there that are not going to do Netflix thinking they do not rent in the volume or wanting to impulse rent instead of ‘Who wants to watch Pinnochio the day after tomorrow’. Redbox will pick up a number of these and the only way the brick and mortar places can compete is with increased selection as well as the added bonus of renting games (I remember reading in the mid nineties the only thing keeping Ma and Pa video stores in business in the Blockbuster world was the little back room rental area, but I’m sure this is one area that digital downloads has completly taken over). If the locals can make the case that they are a destination over an impulse rental, they will probably still have enough of the market.

  5. The Big Perm says:

    I do wonder about that…but I see someone as my parents as being sort of typical renters…they rent fairly often, but usually go for the new releases that the Redboxes are full of. So if the hook is an increased selection with diverse titles…well, then you go to Netflix because that’s the king. I think impulse renting is still one of the main things. What I dislike about Netflix is that it’s harder to come upon random titles that seem interesting. There’s nothing like going through a store and finding weird shit, but if you want that weird shit on Netflix you’d better be specifically looking for it.
    I used to be a proponent of actual stores, but then a lot of times it would be such a pain in the ass to return the movies…plus I figured if I rented four DVDs, I just paid for a month of Netflix. The stores need to lower prices.

  6. Ruminski says:

    Wish I hadn’t read the comments on the TechCrunch article. For the most part, infuriatingly smug and ignorant.

  7. Krazy Eyes says:

    I totally agree with you about the price points on VOD content. Why would anyone (except someone desperate to see a film NOW) pay $4.99 for a 24-hour VOD rental when you could get a Netflix subscription for an entire month for less than double that amount? If there’s a Redbox nearby you can match those rental terms for only a $1.00.
    I’ve rented exactly 1 VOD title over the past 5 years and until they get better pricing/rental lengths I don’t expect to start renting them anytime soon.

  8. SJRubinstein says:

    In the past few months, it hasn’t been all that uncommon to pull into the 7-11 on Sunset (close to the Harmony Gold) and have there by a line in front of the Redbox machine that arrived there only a couple of months back. People in L.A. are starting to love their Redbox as much as my relatives back in Texas have for the last couple of years. For me personally, I’m still all about VOD, but if you know you’re picking up your coffee and donut at the same location every morning and can drop off last night’s movie without having to hit a Blockbuster, that’s gold!

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Does Redbox give people the opportunity to choose from more than 15 or 20 of the most recent popular movies?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon