Blockbuster chapter 11 ?

[jadedeath]

No big surprise here.

Video rental doesn't make any money, hasn't for awhile now.

That's why Blockbuster has been trying over and over to get other things involved {selling Blu-Ray players, trying to buy out Future Shop etc.}

Something that many people don't know is that a Video copy for rent costs about 2-3 times the cost of a regular copy to buy.

If a store can put a DVD copy on sale for $20 usually it costs about $50-$60 to get a copy in for rent due to the licensing fees associated with it.

The rental part of their business is killing them, if the only offered movies for sale and Blu-Ray players {and chips/pop/candy} they'd probably be out of this financial mess.

I mean walk into any Blockbuster and take a look at the new release wall, the 'big' title for the week usually gets in the neighborhood of 100 {or so} rentals. That's $5000, now when the average rental price for those is $5. It's going to take you renting out each copy 10 times just to break even. That doesn't leave a great deal of room for error. Especially with their dumbass new "no late fees" policy.

Someone at Blockbuster head office took a look at their financial reports and said "gee, late fees bring in $30 million annually, let's get rid of them!" Whoever that was should be drug into the street and shot.

Now, to their credit they started to sign deals with the movie companies by way of hacking the cost per title in half, but also having to share revenue with the companies themselves. IE: Get the bigger movies in for $30-$40 per copy but any profit generated on them would be split evenly with the companies. This also went for previously viewed movies last I heard.

That's just for DVD mind you. Blu-Ray's are more expensive {thus the elevated charge when you rent Blu-Ray's in-store as opposed to DVD's} I'm not sure exactly what the costs associated with Blu-Ray's are but I'm fairly sure that they're at least $10-$20 more expensive than the DVD copy for the same movie.

Logan