Idea to boost Blu-ray sales

[gazzie4]

OK, I have both formats and have started buying more blu ray only because of Warners change. I had a thought though that may have been mentioned, or may not have and may not even be allowed with all the union issues.

Here goes why not pick one movie a quarter. A big movie not a dud, and release it exclusively on blu ray one week after theater release. But not for rent. Only for purchase and only for a limited time. That would help push people who haven't made the choice, make the choice.

I may be off my rocker completely, but I really think people who were on the fence, but really love movies, would make this choice. Production companies and movie companies really won't lose extra money and may even help pad thier pockets. And this would really help boost the sales of players. I think it would be beneficial for just about everyone.

Just a thought, take it or leave it.

[bkbluray]

Originally Posted by gazzie4

OK, I have both formats and have started buying more blu ray only because of Warners change. I had a thought though that may have been mentioned, or may not have and may not even be allowed with all the union issues.

Here goes why not pick one movie a quarter. A big movie not a dud, and release it exclusively on blu ray one week after theater release. But not for rent. Only for purchase and only for a limited time. That would help push people who haven't made the choice, make the choice.

I may be off my rocker completely, but I really think people who were on the fence, but really love movies, would make this choice. Production companies and movie companies really won't lose extra money and may even help pad thier pockets. And this would really help boost the sales of players. I think it would be beneficial for just about everyone.

Just a thought, take it or leave it.

It's a good idea. There's no possible way a studio would allow for a release 1 week after the movie was released in theaters, but I guess it's possible to still have an earlier release than the regular one (say 2-3 weeks early). If they did that with Dark Knight or I Am Legend I think that could help people make the switch.

[gazzie4]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

It's a good idea. There's no possible way a studio would allow for a release 1 week after the movie was released in theaters, but I guess it's possible to still have an earlier release than the regular one (say 2-3 weeks early). If they did that with Dark Knight or I Am Legend I think that could help people make the switch.

I just really think if they did a early release it would help, even if it is a movie that has been in theaters for a few weeks. I know in our location there used to be a discount movie theater that 4 movies would move to after about 4-6 weeks in theaters and would only cost 2 dollars to see. I think that would be an incentive to go Blu.

[#1 Rush fan]

I have another idea to add...they should start CLEARLY advertising that all Blu-ray players WORK on REGULAR old fashioned TV's AND PLAY regular DVD's. I know the purpose of Blu-ray isn't to play on 480i TV's, BUT it is helpful and REASSURING to the GENERAL PUBLIC in my opinion....

[gazzie4]

Originally Posted by #1 Rush fan

I have another idea to add...they should start CLEARLY advertising that all Blu-ray players WORK on REGULAR old fashioned TV's AND PLAY regular DVD's. I know the purpose of Blu-ray isn't to play on 480i TV's, BUT it is helpful and REASSURING to the GENERAL PUBLIC in my opinion....

I disagree as no one is going to spend that kind of money to buy a blu ray player to watch it on a 480i tv.

They also aren't going to wait the 5 minutes for a movie to start

[AllenA]

As of right now people who are going to buy Blu-Ray are going to be people who have at minimum a 720p television, otherwise there is not going to be any reason to upgrade.

However I do think that movies should be released Blu exclusive. When a new movie comes out, let it be on Blu only for a few weeks, and then come out in regular DVD, this would start people moving in towards Blu.

[mootinator]

Originally Posted by gazzie4

I disagree as no one is going to spend that kind of money to buy a blu ray player to watch it on a 480i tv.

They also aren't going to wait the 5 minutes for a movie to start

They might buy a PS3 to play on a regular TV.

Then they won't _have_ to wait 5 minutes for the movie to start.

Though I still, personally wouldn't spend the extra cash on blu-ray media just to play on a 480i TV.

[daringdogcow]

Originally Posted by gazzie4

Here goes why not pick one movie a quarter. A big movie not a dud, and release it exclusively on blu ray one week after theater release. But not for rent. Only for purchase and only for a limited time.

You're not off your rocker at all. Disney CEO Bob Iger has been a longtime fan of this idea:

"Mr. Iger says the movie industry also needs to rethink its business model by narrowing, or even eliminating, the gap between a movie's theatrical release and its availability on DVD or pay-per-view. His suggestion took aim at two problems plaguing the industry: declining movie attendance and an apparent plateau in DVD sales.

Theater owners lashed back at Mr. Iger, blaming bad movies for Hollywood's problems. 'If the entire industry went to a simultaneous release, that would mean fewer movies, fewer movie theaters, and consumers will have fewer choices,' says John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners.

But Mr. Iger isn't backing down. 'The message I want to send internally is that we must ask the right questions about current business conditions,' he says, 'and we have to be innovative and willing to test new ideas and new strategies.'" [Link]

So, if he thinks it's a good idea in general, he'd probably like the idea for BD.

[LynxFX]

I'm not sold on the idea yet, but I think it is a horrible idea for the Studios. Right now they get an automatic double dip from me if I like a movie. $10 to see it at the theatre, $20 for a keeper a few months down the line. A few gems even get multiple viewings at the theatre, so $20 or $30 right there. So they are getting at least $10 from me, and $30 to $50 just for one movie if I liked it. If they were to release a film just a week, or even a month after theatrical release I'll probably wait. Most cases I would probably just rent the disc which for me would account to about $2. If I like it, I would purchase it, so $20 there. So now the minimum will be $2 and max $22.

And like the quote shows above, Theater owners would refuse to show those movies, or probably any movies from that Studio. There goes a nearly 10 billion dollar industry. Having only 3-4 months between theatrical and home video right now is making it hard to justify going to the theatre. I used to see around 150-200 films a year on the silver screen, now it is down to maybe 20-30 because I can wait a couple months to rent it for a fraction of the cost.

You want my idea to boost Blu-ray sales? Lower the MSRP of the discs by $10. New releases hitting B&M stores at DVD prices ($15) will make choosing the BD version a no brainer.

[hardcore_canadian]

I always thought this Idea was better suited to fight SD-DVD, so that there's a chance to defeat the big enemy. And even then, i would just release the movie 2-3 weeks before the DVD, not a week or 2 after theatrical release.

[daringdogcow]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

Right now they get an automatic double dip from me if I like a movie. $10 to see it at the theatre, $20 for a keeper a few months down the line. A few gems even get multiple viewings at the theatre, so $20 or $30 right there. So they are getting at least $10 from me, and $30 to $50 just for one movie if I liked it. If they were to release a film just a week, or even a month after theatrical release I'll probably wait. Most cases I would probably just rent the disc which for me would account to about $2. If I like it, I would purchase it, so $20 there. So now the minimum will be $2 and max $22.

This seems to apply more to movies that completely fail during their theatrical runs. I thought we were floating the idea of a simultaneous theatrical / BD release for a high profile title on a seasonal basis. A film like Ratatouille would've fit the bill, given the good buzz and the fact that it was crowded out during its theatrical run. (Domestic sales fell short of Cars' earnings, despite the fact that Ratatouille was viewed more favorably by critics.) I figure that even someone who wasn't that crazy about the film might go for the impulse buy. Disney could then double-dip the titles with a Special Edition / Platinum Edition with all the extras. The Disney vault is a good example; the scarcity it creates even generates demand for an inferior product, like Cinderella II.

Originally Posted by LynxFX

And like the quote shows above, Theater owners would refuse to show those movies, or probably any movies from that Studio. There goes a nearly 10 billion dollar industry.

Obviously, I can't get into the head of someone who runs an media empire and earns $27.7 million a year, but I don't think movie theaters have all the market power here. It's Hollywood studios that are the resource monopolies; without them, theaters would have no content to present to their audiences. The studios, on the other hand, have alternative business models they're working on. Paramount just released Jackass 2.5 online.

You want my idea to boost Blu-ray sales? Lower the MSRP of the discs by $10. New releases hitting B&M stores at DVD prices ($15) will make choosing the BD version a no brainer.

DVDs still have MSRPs in the $20-30 range, and they're at the end of their lifecycle. It's LGF and Fox that won't lower their price points. On the other hand, every new release from BVHE in Q1 has been $23.95 on Amazon. Back catalog is listing for $19.95 and there's a $10 rebate for anyone who buys The Rock, Con Air, or Crimson Tide BD and already has the DVD. There's also an $5 off coupon you can print. I'd say that at least one studio's getting there.

[corky]

Very easy...Release Blu-ray players in the $99 to $199 range.

Right now there is so many people buying upconversion DVD players instead of Blu-ray because of the price difference. Not many people after spending $700 for a bedroom LCD want to spend another $500 for Blu-ray. When the prices start dropping on Blu-ray players then you'll end up seeing more and more Blu-ray rental copies of the latest movies at your local Blockbuster, until then the transition from DVD to Blu-ray will take a long time.

[Firestreak]

You want to release dvds and blu-rays at the same time, so you can advertise them together. Advertising is a huge part of the budget for selling anything.

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by daringdogcow

Obviously, I can't get into the head of someone who runs an media empire and earns $27.7 million a year, but I don't think movie theaters have all the market power here. It's Hollywood studios that are the resource monopolies; without them, theaters would have no content to present to their audiences. The studios, on the other hand, have alternative business models they're working on. Paramount just released Jackass 2.5 online.

They have a mutual power between the two. Without movies, yes theatres would have nothing to show, but without theatres, movies would have no place to show them. I think you are underestimating the feeling of watching a movie on the big screen. Going to the movies is a national pasttime and it will always be there. Theatres are still a major source of revenue, especially now with worldwide markets expanding. The other advantage is if a family goes to the theatre they are spending close to $50 to see it since everyone needs a ticket. You purchase the movie ondemand or on BD you only are purchasing it once for much less. I know they tried an onDemand simultanious release of a film a while back. It cost $50, so it was meant to cover those extra tickets lost. Eitherway there are some out there that are trying to fix something that isn't broken, but with all this tinkering they might just pull the wrong thread.

DVDs still have MSRPs in the $20-30 range, and they're at the end of their lifecycle.

And BD's have MSRP in the $30-$44 range. You are right that there have been some decent deals on new releases and some Studios are doing the right thing in reguards to catalog prices. So some are starting to get the idea, that expensive media isn't selling. But this needs to become the norm, not the exception. All you ever hear about is the cost of players players players. Well I only need one player at the moment, but I'll spend 20x that on the media I stick in the machine. Player prices will naturally come down, they always do. Media usually stays about the same so I would like to push to get that price down.

Think of it this way, the closer BD's get to DVD pricing, the more likely people will make the investment in a player, and the more BD's get sold. We have already seen that cheap players don't sell expensive media. HD DVD proved that perfectly for us.

[ThatArtGuy]

I have a standard tv. However, I purchase BD's for the same reason I was purchasing CD's instead of tapes in the 80's. I may not have a CD player now... but I will. Why buy something substandard when I can have something reference quality?

I have a carrying case for my PS3 if I need to see something on an HDTV. My father-in-law has one. I'm sure he doesn't mind my BD collection.

TAG

[gazzie4]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

... I think you are underestimating the feeling of watching a movie on the big screen. Going to the movies is a national pasttime and it will always be there. Theatres are still a major source of revenue, especially now with worldwide markets expanding. ...

I don't know about everyone else, but I gave up on movies the moment my sound system started sound better than theres and my tv picture looked better as well. In a movie theater you have people talking, babies crying, some idiot walking up and down the aisles with a flash light 4-5 times a movie, very hot or very cold theater, no pause function if you have to use the facilities, overpriced soda, candy and popcorn, the list goes on.

I would much prefer to watch it in my house, which is why I have not been to a theater in months, and have probably only seen 2 or 3 movies in a theater in the last year.