Banner
Home Forums Movie Theaters The Sidewalk A Fight Brews Over Hollywood's Video Window
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: A Fight Brews Over Hollywood's Video Window

A Fight Brews Over Hollywood's Video Window 26 Sep 2010 09:37 #34613

  • sevstar
  • sevstar's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 527
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 0
In This War, Movie Studios Are Siding With Your Couch

Only about 45 days after new films go to theaters, studios want to offer them on video-on-demand.

SOMETIME in the next few months, there is likely to be an explosion in the movie business. The question is which studio will detonate the bomb.

Tension between studios and theater owners has been simmeringa long time, but it intensified in May, when the Federal Communications Commission issued what appeared on the surface to be an arcane ruling. After two years of prodding from Hollywood, the F.C.C. agreed to let movie studios activate technology to prevent films sold through video-on-demand systems from being copied.

Ho-hum? Hardly. The ruling gave studios the ability to pursue a new business — so-called premium V.O.D. — that may be the industry’s best hope of restoring itself to health, now that the bottom has fallen out of the DVD market.

Right now, theaters get an exclusive period — 120 days, on average — to serve up new movies. Then the releases appear on television video-on-demand services at a price of about $4.99. Armed with the new copy-blocking technology, studios want to offer new movies on video-on-demand services about 45 days after they arrive in theaters, for a premium price of $24.99.

The business opportunity is multifold. With as much as 80 percent of that early V.O.D. revenue going to the studio, movie executives see a new engine to compensate for the sputtering DVD. And for the studios, the need is urgent: DVD sales for the year are expected to total about $9.9 billion, down 30 percent from their peak in 2004, according to Adams Media Research.

Studios also want to cut marketing costs by interweaving advertising for theatrical, DVD and video-on-demand releases; reducing the exclusive “window” given to theaters would make it easier to combine those campaigns. Premium V.O.D. would also bring greater consumer awareness to regular video on demand, which has not caught on as much as other rental options like Netflix, according to a research report by Anthony DiClemente, an analyst at Barclays Capital.

Last but not least, studios are aware that consumers are growing impatient about being unable to access all movies whenever and wherever they want. Layering in an early video-on-demand option might prevent some of those frustrated customers from turning to pirated copies.

“There are people who we believe would like to see movies sooner than later and would pay a premium price to do that,” Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, told analysts on a conference call last month. “We are going to become aggressive.”

Cable and satellite television providers like Time Warner Cable (which is no longer connected to Warner Brothers) and DirecTV are ready to push the button on premium V.O.D. as soon as they reach a deal with studios. After all, the service would represent another revenue stream for these providers and another way to differentiate themselves with customers. The promise of the new business is one reason that Comcast is so eager for government regulators to clear its deal to take control of NBC Universal, analysts say.

SO what’s the problem? DVD retailers, for a start. The likes of Best Buy and Wal-Mart “have told studios they will retaliate against anyone who tries early-release V.O.D. because of the threat it poses to DVD sales,” Richard Greenfield, an analyst at the financial services company BTIG, wrote in a research note last Monday.

But the real wrath will come from theater owners, who have made it clear that releasing a movie early on video-on-demand services — thus cutting into their window — would be the equivalent of declaring war. Over the summer, the National Association of Theater Owners took out full-page ads in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter making its opposition clear.

The worry for theaters, of course, is that people will be more reluctant to buy movie tickets, at an average cost of almost $8, if they know they can catch the same film just a few weeks later in their living rooms, and for less money than it costs to haul the whole family to the multiplex. Considering that the average moviegoer spends more than $3 on popcorn and soda and the like, the cost of Friday night at the movies for a family of four can easily reach $45 — or much more in cities like New York — even before premium-priced 3-D screenings or possible parking fees are factored in.

“While exhibitors understand the new pressures that a weakened DVD market creates for their studio partners,” the ads read in part, “four decades of box-office growth and three straight years of record-breaking box office argue for caution in tampering with a business model that clearly works.”

The Big Three theater chains — Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment and Cinemark — declined to comment, but smaller theater companies have been more vocal.

“Be careful before you cook us all, yourselves included,” wrote Gregory S. Marcus, the chief executive of the Marcus Corporation — the parent of Marcus Theatres, a Midwest exhibitor — in a July opinion article in The Hollywood Reporter.

Exhibitors are also arguing that the copy-blocking technology approved by the F.C.C. won’t work. “If past is prologue, technological locks will be overcome with technological crowbars,” the ads from the National Association of Theater Owners stated.

Adding to this argument was news last week that hackers were able to crack Intel technology used to securely transmit high-definition content between televisions and set-top boxes. (Intel played down the threat, saying that a special device would need to be built to exploit the information.)

Theater owners mean business. When Sony Pictures Entertainment tried a test with “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” last year — owners of Internet-connected Bravia televisions could rent that movie before it was available on DVD, for $25 for a month — some theaters yanked the film.

In a similar showdown, Disney’s decision last spring to release “Alice in Wonderland” early on DVD was greeted by boycott calls from theater owners, most forcefully in Britain.

Studio executives say they are going to risk premium V.O.D. anyway, contending that they have little choice, given the DVD downturn. Besides, analysts estimate that 90 percent of a film’s admissions revenue is now generated within 30 days of its release.

(The rebuttal from theater owners is that the data doesn’t take into account second-run and discount theaters, and that there are big exceptions: “Inception,” for instance, was still raking in millions in theaters 10 weeks after its release.)

Protecting the box office is crucial for studios, and for reasons beyond the importance of their ticket-revenue share. For a start, under long-term contracts, premium television networks like HBO and Showtime typically pay for movies using formulas based on domestic box-office revenue. So shrinking ticket sales would also mean shrinking television revenue.

Studios also rely on big theatrical runs to catapult titles into the public consciousness. Without all of the hoopla surrounding a hit at the multiplex — the lines, the marquees, the buzz in the corridors afterward — movies start to feel an awful lot like their more commodified cousin, television.

SO which studio is going to go first, and when? All six of the major studios declined to comment for this article. But multiple movie executives with deep knowledge of the landscape say the first quarter of next year is the target, in part because big Christmas releases like “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” and “Tron: Legacy” give studios extra leverage.

The studios that seem most likely to make a move are Disney, 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers. In part because its size gives it more muscle than other studios, Warner has historically shown a willingness to rewrite the blueprints for the home entertainment business. It was Warner, for instance, that aggressively pushed to release movies on traditional V.O.D. at the same time the DVDs arrived in stores.

One thing is certain, said a top motion picture agent who requested anonymity so as not to anger his contacts in the industry: “Studios have made it clear they are not interested in testing the waters on premium V.O.D. Once they start, they’re going to do it.”

www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26st...?_r=1&ref=technology

www.cnbc.com/id/39366994
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:A Fight Brews Over Hollywood's Video Window 26 Sep 2010 19:21 #34615

  • muviebuf
  • muviebuf's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 686
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
These plans may have been derailed by last week's on-line release of the crack of the HD anti piracy code used to protect the data:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/15/5115347-hd-anti-piracy-code-crack-leaked-online

Perhaps the release was done by some disgruntled second run theatre owner?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:A Fight Brews Over Hollywood's Video Window 29 Sep 2010 10:33 #34634

  • sevstar
  • sevstar's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 527
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 0
Netflix Killer? Yeah, Right.

Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) is falling on a generally positive market day. The culprit? Several large Hollywood studios are banding together to create a brand-new digital streaming service with some unique perks. A nervous market takes that as a threat to the Netflix business model.

And that's completely wrong. Again.

What's the deal?
Sony (NYSE: SNE), Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS), and Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) Warner Bros. are talking to a conglomerate of cable TV operators to hammer out an on-demand service for films still in theaters. The studios want to charge as much as $30 for a rental through your digital cable box.

The substantial premium over a regular $4 on-demand rental would be supported by quick availability, well within the 120-day window that's usually reserved for movie theaters and maybe even day-and-date on premiere day. The addressable market looks to be large, as the studios are talking to a joint venture between Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA), Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC), and Cox Communications -- three of the largest cable providers in the nation.

Put their digital cable subscribers together and you get a massive potential audience for whatever flicks the studios agree to send down the pipe. Once this model is a proven success -- which looks like an inevitable outcome from where I sit -- you can bet that every cable service large and small will want in on this action.

Why isn't this a big deal for Netflix?
This project may end up transforming how studios, theaters, distributors, and consumers think about movie releases. A shorter or nonexistent release window would appeal to viewers who can't get a babysitter or prefer to stay home for other reasons, and this will have two effects: The total market should grow significantly if the pricing balance is right, and part of the revenue stream moves from the theater to the living room.

What it doesn't do is pose any threat to Netflix. In fact, this deal would only legitimize the streaming business model and hasten the demise of physical media such as DVDs and Blu-ray disks.

You see, Netflix plays to a different crowd. The company has never tried to be the destination for piping-hot new releases, but makes a very comfortable living on the long tail of cinematic content. Let the early birds pay through the nose for a hot-off-the-presses release -- at $30 a pop, the price would be comparable to a handful of movie tickets, hold the popcorn.

Netflix swoops in later, when the value-minded movie watchers get their hands on the same films at a much less painful price point. This is what Netflix does, in the very words of CEO Reed Hastings. It has proven to be a popular and sustainable business model. Let other media distributors fight over the big-ticket early access; Netflix doesn't need it. The company will take a few licenses for fairly early streaming access to new material but I don't see it ever reaching for concurrent theatrical streams -- the studios will price them way out of the Netflix price range.

Who's hurting, then?
If the studios are hurting anybody here, it's AMC and Regal Entertainment Group (NYSE: RGC), whose cinematic audiences may choose to stay in front of their big-screen home entertainment systems in coming years. This is the way the industry is leaning, and it was only a matter of time before it happened.

The digital revolution is happening before your very eyes, dear Fool. I hope you saw it coming years ago and invested accordingly, by buying into Netflix or the more forward-thinking studios. These are the giants of the next generation; dinosaurs of the physical distribution era will shrink or die.

The market is acting as if Netflix just met a nemesis, but it's really an ally in disguise. Feel free to take this opportunity to start a position, or at least put an "outperform" rating on Netflix in our CAPS system. You'll be glad you did when the smoke clears.

www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/09/2...ller-yeah-right.aspx
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.153 seconds
attraction attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction