Disney's Disposable DVDs Deemed Duds

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney's Disposable DVDs Deemed Duds

Posted by michael on Friday January 30, 2004 @04:58AM from the duh dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like disposable DVD's are headed the way of the dodo bird. Consumers (ahem, customers) in several markets are rejecting the $7 self destructing flexplay discs. Some stores have decided to stop selling. According to the stores, 'Customers aren't interested in paying more than $6 for a limited-play DVD when they can pay $2 at the video store. Even with a $2 late fee, it's cheaper than buying a disposable DVD.' and 'he hasn't seen one customer purchase an EZ-D, though some of them have been shoplifted out of the store.'"

17 of 527 comments (clear)

Good. by AgTiger · 2004-01-30 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

After the DivX fiasco (the DVD-esque player, not the codec) and now this, maybe they'll start to listen. Customers want to buy and own their products, not rent or license them.
1. Re:Good. by Neop2Lemus · 2004-01-30 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or we want to rent them at at reasonable price. $6.00 is still too much to pay to rent but since its' still signifigantly cheaper than buying the film, and theres' no cheaper alternative, people pay it.
  When you push for $7.00, and there is a cheaper alternative (i.e. renting as above), it shouldn't be any wonder that the product failed. Of course, I'm saying this in hindsight, but, had I know the price they were asking, I'd have predicted its failure anyways (BTW, I'm just a student, not a professional, I'm speaking as a consumer).
  As an enviromentalist, I'm pleased.
  
  --
  Needle Nardle Noo
2. Re:Good. by Trigun · 2004-01-30 05:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Naw, he just licensed it.
3. Re:Good. by Squonk01 · 2004-01-30 05:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For those who missed the DivX fiasco the first time.
4. Re:Good. by adrianbaugh · 2004-01-30 05:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Agreed. The only thing issuing limited-life DVDs will accomplish is it will make the general public much more familiar with DVD ripping tools. If someone buys a DVD and it'll only play once then it's not going to take long for them to decide that that single play is going straight to DVD:Rip or the hard disk so that it can be watched repeatedly.
  
  Of course, that's only if titles are only released in such a format: if there's a choice, consumers will just ignore the self-destructing option.
  
  New Line got it right with the Special Edition LoTR DVDs. They're lovely products, well packaged with high quality extras (and don't self-destruct ;-)).
  People will happily pay for something like that: they will be far less happy at movie companies that treat them like scum who can't be trusted with the content they're so graciously permitted to view.
  
  --
  "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
  - JRR Tolkien.
5. Re:Good. by PhuCknuT · 2004-01-30 05:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  actually that's not true. The degradation is caused by a chamical reactuion with oxygen in the air, not by the read laser, so they can be watched as much as you want, for about 2 days.
6. Re:Good. by Waffle+Iron · 2004-01-30 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Both this and Divx didn't fail because of their self-destruct element as much as the fact they were priced higher than the already existing systems...
  I think that there's also a big psychological element to the issue. If someone's going to rent something at home, it needs to be totally intangible, like a pay-per-view movie on cable or a rented tape. It comes and goes, and leaves nothing behind.
  If you "rent" them something -- even at the exact same price -- and it involves a physical object that "self destructs", people are going to feel ripped off. No matter what, part of you feels that you paid for the physical medium, not just the content, and having to throw it in the trash bin just feels wrong.
  It doesn't matter that returning a movie might add significant cost to a movie rental in terms of time and vehicle costs, or that throwing away a thin plastic disc is probably less wasteful than burning an extra half gallon of gas driving to return a rental. Right or wrong, people just don't think like that.
duh by jester42 · 2004-01-30 05:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's an easy one for any marketing genius. Just raise (ahem adjust) the prices for rental videos and people will be happy to buy those.
1. Re:duh by smackjer · 2004-01-30 05:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Some reasons that Blockbuster is still in business:
  
  1) There is still a "digital divide". Not everyone has or wants a computer with web access at home; unfortunately this is usually for financial reasons. Netflix is not a viable option for them.
  
  2) People want to be able to pick up a movie on the way home from work on Friday night. They don't want to have to plan spontaneous movie night a week in advance (to account for shipping time).
  
  3) New releases can be had the day of release at Blockbuster. With Netflix, you're lucky to get it a week later. Not a big deal for the patient, but some people want it ASAP.
  
  4) Not everyone rents enough movies every month to make the $20 worthwhile.
  
  I'm sure there are other reasons.
  
  --
  
  This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
poor shoplifters by skutters · 2004-01-30 05:01 · Score: 5, Funny

I feel sorry for the shoplifters, they probably thought they were proper DVDs not coffee mats!
Next Codec name prediction... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 05:01 · Score: 5, Funny

flexpay ;-)
The person who thought of this should be fired by eaddict · 2004-01-30 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

It was a horrible idea from the beginning. If they were a buck then it might work but as long as titans like Wal-Mart keep DVDs cheap to buy, and Blockbuster keeps them cheap to rent they won't sell. Even my kiddos questions why we would want to buy something that we would just have to throw away! In our (U.S.) society of lazyness I am glad to see the environment won a round even though it was through a left hook (ie price NOT recyclability).

--
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
No Crap by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-01-30 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

One more "It's our property, and we don't trust you, the consumer, with it." from the big organizations has met consumers who are dissatisfied with their garbage and unwilling to pay for it.

Great!

And I hope the next time they try this it fails just as hard as this venture did. And eventually some executive will say, "Hey, wait a minute. Maybe it's not worth alienating all our customers to squeeze an extra million out of our already 100 billion dollar profits."

Of course that executive will be ignored, and possibly fired for lack of vision. But it's a start.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Netflix by TheWickedKingJeremy · 2004-01-30 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative

First off, what video store costs only $2?! Its more like $4-5 here in Boston.

And second, I don't see how any of these models (rental, disposable for $6, etc) can compete with Netflix, other than if you happen to need the movie right away (and how often is that the case?) Right now I average about 12 movies per month on Netflix, all for $20! And the foreign and independent selections is *far* better than at local video stores.

Ok, I'm a fanboy...

--

my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Landfills of plastic by rjelks · 2004-01-30 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now if we could just convince AOL to stop producing those throw-away CD's. There must be a large landfill somewhere with stacks and stacks of AOL (1000 hours of free access) CD's laying around. I'd rather pay a few bucks for some kind of video on demand service over the internet or cable. I'm not sure why anyone would want to buy a disposable movie.

-

--

Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Commercials by Chagatai · 2004-01-30 05:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

I always got a chuckle whenever I saw a Disney commercial advertising a particular movie on VHS or DVD, where they would swear that this was the absolute last time you could possibly buy a copy of the film. "Buy your limited silver-plated collector's edition 2000 version copy of Cinderella now, before it goes back in the Disney vault forever! We mean it! It won't be coming back in two years as a special gold-lithographed edition, we swear it!" It makes me wonder how they could advertise these self-destructing DVDs...
"Get your limited copy of Beauty and the Beast now! And we do mean limited! This film will expire in two weeks and after that you will have to wait until we rehash this film and sell it again in another two months! Don't even think of renting a copy from Blockbuster, because we own them, too! This film will only last in your memories!"
Seriously, though, here's the amazing truth: people like buying crap that doesn't break. Imagine if your copy of Detective Comics #27 spontaneously combusted after 60 years of age. Who would want to collect and read that?

--
--Chag
Re:$7? were they out of their minds? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-30 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

i thought self-destructing discs were supposed to be cheaper than normal rentals because you wouldn't need the return/inventory system. were they more expensive to make, or were they just out of their minds?
Good old corporate greed. I just buy previewed DVDs from the local video store for $5-$10. They look just as good as the new ones unless someone scratched it in which case the store will take it back and replace it with another if they have one. I've bought 50 new and used DVDs over the past couple of years compared to 1 used CD I bought because I was on vacation and had nothing to listen to in a rental car. Take that RIAA. $18 for 45 minutes of music my ass..