Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

http://instantwatcher.com/

how does using a search tool for titles on Netflix make them actually HAVE MORE TITLES available? lol.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Here is a stat for folks that don’t have Netflix streaming or Amazon Prime (I have both and Blu-ray 3 at a time by mail). Type something into Netflix search, like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, you will get a lot of hits, the problem, VERY few will have a Blue PLAY button (meaning available for streaming) most have a Red SAVE button (meaning disc). You get similar results at Amazon except instead of SAVE its RENT or PURCHASE.

The facts is this, SVOD does not offer that many newer titles or more valuable catalog titles PERIOD

The last time I looked Netflix streaming was 80% TV/20% movies and other content. My personal Netflix streaming is more like 95% TV which is viewed on a 32" LCD. Not about to waste expensive projector lamp time on steaming.

There's 97 John Wayne titles on Amazon Prime.

http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A28587...nid=2470954011

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Tok

Vudu is successful because of UV and their WM parent.

Again I don't mind cloud as a secondary viewing option, but there's no way the studios can realistically think they can sell a cloud copy for the same price as an A-list new release Blu-ray. Your a fool if your paying that much for a cloud only copy.

IMO, Vudu is successful because it doesn't require a monthly membership. Even if there's a financial advantage to a monthly membership, consumers have reached a point where they don't want to see another regular charge on their credit card bill.

I think over time, content and release date will be perceived as the driving factor in price, not the distribution method. While I agree that the perception is that streaming has a lesser value than the physical copy, as more consumers opt for the streaming because younger consumers feel no need to own, streaming prices will slowly increase and physical copies will slowly decrease, especially for back catalog titles. We've already seen this where tons of lesser films (and even some great classics) are selling on BD for $7. I never expected to see such low prices at this stage in the game.

The one "fly in the ointment" is what happens to theatrical revenues. Although the really big films still do extraordinarily well, movie attendance is dropping considerably in theaters. I expect at least 20% of theaters to close in the next few years - both those that haven't converted to digital yet and won't (which will close this year) and those which won't want to make the investment for the equivalent of RPX or ETX, Dolby Atmos, 4D seats, laser projection, etc. As theatrical revenues drop, the studios are going to have to make it up either by increased international sales (which are already larger than domestic box office for almost every single film), far lower production budgets (as happened in the 50s-70s, except for roadshow films) or increased home video prices for new films.

BD is not having a great year. In spite of supposed tremendous physical copy sales of Hunger Games, as of 3/15, BD $ sales in the U.S. are 10.4% behind last year. BD has a 30.4% dollar share (of physical media), but only a 20.3% unit share. Every single week this year has been behind last year (in dollars). The question is whether streaming revenue has increased in comparison to physical media or whether consumers have simply purchased/rented fewer films in any format because there are more alternatives (better quality cable shows) and as costs have dropped to almost nothing, the perception of the value of movies has dropped as well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

IMO, Vudu is successful because it doesn't require a monthly membership. Even if there's a financial advantage to a monthly membership, consumers have reached a point where they don't want to see another regular charge on their credit card bill.

I think over time, content and release date will be perceived as the driving factor in price, not the distribution method. While I agree that the perception is that streaming has a lesser value than the physical copy, as more consumers opt for the streaming because younger consumers feel no need to own, streaming prices will slowly increase and physical copies will slowly decrease, especially for back catalog titles. We've already seen this where tons of lesser films (and even some great classics) are selling on BD for $7. I never expected to see such low prices at this stage in the game.

The one "fly in the ointment" is what happens to theatrical revenues. Although the really big films still do extraordinarily well, movie attendance is dropping considerably in theaters. I expect at least 20% of theaters to close in the next few years - both those that haven't converted to digital yet and won't (which will close this year) and those which won't want to make the investment for the equivalent of RPX or ETX, Dolby Atmos, 4D seats, laser projection, etc. As theatrical revenues drop, the studios are going to have to make it up either by increased international sales (which are already larger than domestic box office for almost every single film), far lower production budgets (as happened in the 50s-70s, except for roadshow films) or increased home video prices for new films.

BD is not having a great year. In spite of supposed tremendous physical copy sales of Hunger Games, as of 3/15, BD $ sales in the U.S. are 10.4% behind last year. BD has a 30.4% dollar share (of physical media), but only a 20.3% unit share. Every single week this year has been behind last year (in dollars). The question is whether streaming revenue has increased in comparison to physical media or whether consumers have simply purchased/rented fewer films in any format because there are more alternatives (better quality cable shows) and as costs have dropped to almost nothing, the perception of the value of movies has dropped as well.

Considering the last two weeks have seen fantastic sales of Hunger Games and then Frozen that is baffling.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by wormraper

how does using a search tool for titles on Netflix make them actually HAVE MORE TITLES available? lol.

Being that he missed 90 plus titles by one of the two actors he named on one of the two services he mentioned I figured a website that makes it easier to find titles might help him out.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Considering the last two weeks have seen fantastic sales of Hunger Games and then Frozen that is baffling.

No as baffling as thinking the sales of two titles is indicative of an entire industry sector.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

No as baffling as thinking the sales of two titles is indicative of an entire industry sector.

Where did I say that? I was talking about two individual titles?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

There's 97 John Wayne titles on Amazon Prime.

That is the tally from Amazon, problem is, it will pull-up titles that does not have the specified actors in it.

And how many Clint Eastwood titles at Amazon Prime? There was a reason that I used the word similar.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

IMO, Vudu is successful because it doesn't require a monthly membership. Even if there's a financial advantage to a monthly membership, consumers have reached a point where they don't want to see another regular charge on their credit card bill.

I think over time, content and release date will be perceived as the driving factor in price, not the distribution method. While I agree that the perception is that streaming has a lesser value than the physical copy, as more consumers opt for the streaming because younger consumers feel no need to own, streaming prices will slowly increase and physical copies will slowly decrease, especially for back catalog titles. We've already seen this where tons of lesser films (and even some great classics) are selling on BD for $7. I never expected to see such low prices at this stage in the game.

The one "fly in the ointment" is what happens to theatrical revenues. Although the really big films still do extraordinarily well, movie attendance is dropping considerably in theaters. I expect at least 20% of theaters to close in the next few years - both those that haven't converted to digital yet and won't (which will close this year) and those which won't want to make the investment for the equivalent of RPX or ETX, Dolby Atmos, 4D seats, laser projection, etc. As theatrical revenues drop, the studios are going to have to make it up either by increased international sales (which are already larger than domestic box office for almost every single film), far lower production budgets (as happened in the 50s-70s, except for roadshow films) or increased home video prices for new films.

BD is not having a great year. In spite of supposed tremendous physical copy sales of Hunger Games, as of 3/15, BD $ sales in the U.S. are 10.4% behind last year. BD has a 30.4% dollar share (of physical media), but only a 20.3% unit share. Every single week this year has been behind last year (in dollars). The question is whether streaming revenue has increased in comparison to physical media or whether consumers have simply purchased/rented fewer films in any format because there are more alternatives (better quality cable shows) and as costs have dropped to almost nothing, the perception of the value of movies has dropped as well.

That begs the question, "will Netflix switch to a ala carte model in future"?

[Tok]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

No as baffling as thinking the sales of two titles is indicative of an entire industry sector.

To you every big hit title is an outlier. Here's a clue for you it's the big hit titles that drive the business. If there aren't any major releases coming out for a period it's because the studios have usually had a string of BO disappointments.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by vargo

Do you similarly think that electricity was a shiny new toy? That people had a bit of fun with electric lightbulbs and then got bored and everyone went back to gas lamps?

Or running water vs walking to a well with a bucket? Do you think that running water was a passing fad?

The internet is not a shiny toy or a passing fad. It is here to stay and it will grow in penetration, speed and capacity every year. Digital distribution is replacing physical media as a way of getting 1s and 0s into consumers homes. It's not a passing fad.

But...but...electricity and water are needs. TV/movie streaming are wants. Your examples are apples to oranges.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Tok

To you every big hit title is an outlier. Here's a clue for you it's the big hit titles that drive the business. If there aren't any major releases coming out for a period it's because the studios have usually had a string of BO disappointments.

No just me but anyone that can read a bell curve. Your response that studios haven't had BO success and therefore few large selling titles just supports the theory. Now if re-releases on BD sold well just because people MUST have these titles in HD, the handful of hits a year would be less of an outlier because then ALL titles were selling well.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That begs the question, "will Netflix switch to a ala carte model in future"?

Seriously doubt it. They have 3 tiers now, SD one feed, HD two feed and HD four feed. Seems logical that's the route they will continue.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

That is the tally from Amazon, problem is, it will pull-up titles that does not have the specified actors in it.

And how many Clint Eastwood titles at Amazon Prime? There was a reason that I used the word similar.

The most ironic part of this was yesterday on Prime I watched El Dorado and Kelly's Heroes.

There are several Eastwood titles on Prime.

Both those services have several times the selection of what a Blockbuster store had. Probably as many Wayne and Eastwood titles too. Only difference is they won't be checked out and unavailable.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Seriously doubt it. They have 3 tiers now, SD one feed, HD two feed and HD four feed. Seems logical that's the route they will continue.

Until they can eventually charge more for 4k feeds. We know it's coming.

Also, what if a single person just wants a HD feed to watch on their big tv. That tier system seems to omit that type of customer. One feed SD and one feed HD would have been better.

[wormraper]

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

There are several Eastwood titles on Prime.

I get 10 Clint Eastwood titles on Prime Eligible but it is the same problem, only 4 of those are Clint Eastwood movies with the 5th being a travel title.

I stand by my comment that A titles are sparse on SVOD and as long as the SVOD service is cheap then A titles will remain sparse. I believe you are about the second person that has argued otherwise.

FWIW for those with Amazon Prime, we will see a $20.00 per year increase with our anniversary date (when your sub renews).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by wormraper

[/IMG]

Dude, your BD collection makes mine look very small. Do you have your titles in a database? If so, what do you use? I've been using Movie Collector for several years. Before that I used File Express, a flat field DB, starting in 1985.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Dude, your BD collection makes mine look very small. Do you have your titles in a database? If so, what do you use? I've been using Movie Collector for several years. Before that I used File Express, a flat field DB, starting in 1985.

lol, it gets a bit daunting at times. right now I'm using the blu-ray.com database.. I used to have movie collector but ever since they upgraded to the latest versions where you can't use IMDB or DVDempire I've stopped... I'm thinking about switching to DVD profiler though.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Until they can eventually charge more for 4k feeds. We know it's coming.

Also, what if a single person just wants a HD feed to watch on their big tv. That tier system seems to omit that type of customer. One feed SD and one feed HD would have been better.

For $7.99 I can watch a movie and so can my daughter, at the same time. The 2 feed tier used to include more than 2. Many families have NetFlix. If you have a two feed NetFlix, cheap people can share the log on and split the price.


You come up with some questionable ideas.