Wal-Mart Turns Over DVD Rentals to Netflix

prostoalex writes "US retail giant Wal-Mart is turning its DVD rental business to Netflix. No word on how much money the deal is worth but Netflix will feature promotional Wal-Mart links for the 100K customers it gets from the retail chain."

Comments

Wal-mart censorship

[Lovesquid]

Anyone know if Wal-mart censors their DVD rentals like they do with their retail CDs/DVDs? I know I won't shop there for this reason.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know what? It's your right not to shop there because you disagree with their censoring. And it's Wal-mart's right to censor what they sell so people who WANT the censored material can get it.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[killmenow]

I don't know, but I could imagine a scenario wherein NetFlix provides what amounts to a fulfillment service to Wal-Mart under the Wal-Mart name and maintains its own NetFlix branded rental service.

Then, if Wal-Mart says: no NC-17 movies, etc., on our branded service, fine. So long as the people who are interested in it can still get it under the NetFlix name, I don't care if Wal-Mart wants to filter their product.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Big_Al_B]

Er, how does a *store* choosing what merchandise to sell to *customers* who choose to shop there constitute censorship again?

If that's censorship then I guess my local whole foods market is guilty too, because they don't carry Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch. All they carry is some crappy organic peanut butter puffs. The *bastards*.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Clockwork Apple]

What do you do when Wal-Mart is the only game in town? You see, in lots of small towns Wal-Mart is the only retail outlet left. I'll just leave it to your imagination as to what happened to the others that used to exist before Wal-Mart came to town.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Big_Al_B]

Wal-Mart sells DVDs that have had their content edited (dubbed words, cut scenes), and only mention it in small type that you have to know to look for. Otherwise the packages look almost identical to the full length versions.

So they *are* labelled then...

It's the same kind of editing that TV stations do to show a PG-13 or R rated movie during the day.

And this was not obvious to who?

The fact that it isn't CLEARLY labelled as such, masquerading as the real thing, IS censorship.

You define "censorship" based on how something is labelled?! Really? You have a differrent understanding of censorship than I do...and the dictionary....and, well, educated people.

Really. Censorship is when an authoritative body prevents you from speaking/viewing/hearing something you want to say/see/hear. Otherwise, it's just not censorship.

Oh, wait! What authority do you believe Walmart has over you? Do they make you come to the store, search their DVD bins, and buy all of your movies from them? If they've started getting that brazen about their world domination efforts, then maybe I really will get concerned.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It would almost certainly be a money loser even at the volumes wally-world buys at.

Tell that to the hundreds of businesses, large and small, that Wal-Mart puts out of business by doing exactly that. They sell over $285 BILLION a year, and if you don't do everything that they want, then they will simply make a boat-load of money with another supplier.

Oh, you are the only person/entity that owns the movie/DVD rights? Ok, then, if you don't edit EVERYTHING we want in EVERYTHING we buy from you, you lose complete access to the millions and millions who spend billions and billions in the most widespread retailing network on the planet.

It doesn't matter if it's a money-loser for anyone, as long as Wal-Mart can make money. And with the enormous marketshare they have and the retailing power that comes with it, they can make a profit off of anything they choose to, usually at the expense of their suppliers.

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[tOaOMiB]

Errr, pardon me for inquiring, but why is it so expensive to produce both an edited and unedited version of a DVD? All the edits have already taken place (for TV, VHS, whatever)...so where's the expense?

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[TerminaMorte]

So, please post the timecode for an example of this editing and I will go and try to confirm it on my copy tonight.

Mmm, mmm. Smells like defensism.

Wouldn't it be easy to just ask him what parts he remembers being removed, so you can watch it and see for yourself?

Who the hell would waste the time to look up timecodes to appease some random guy on slashdot?

Re:Wal-mart censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see some sort of supporting evidence for your claims.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with recordable DVDs, their data layer is a distinct purple color. They are the only kind of DVDs for which it is economically feasible to make on demand.

It is FAR more likely that they have a contract with the big studios that allows them to warehouse plenty of excess copies in advance and as long as they keep good inventory control, the studios "trust" netflix not to send out more DVDs simultaneously than they have officially licensed.

I am kind of surprised...

[Stop Error]

I am a Netflix die hard but I figured Wal Mart with all it's capital and brand recognition would crush Netflix.

Good turn of events.

Competition

[MyLongNickName]

It seems to me that the there is really only room for one DVD rental-by-mail service. It is one of those commodity items that becomes cheaper to run on a per-customer basis the more customers you have. Netflix got rid of a potential competitor and gained an influential ally in the process. Now, they have to deal with Blockbuster.

In five years, only one will remain. Who will win? My money is still on Blockbuster, but the odds have definitely shifted.

Re:Competition

[mattmentecky]

It seems to me that the there is really only room for one DVD rental-by-mail service. It is one of those commodity items that becomes cheaper to run on a per-customer basis the more customers you have. Netflix got rid of a potential competitor and gained an influential ally in the process. Now, they have to deal with Blockbuster.

*bangs head against his Capitalism Fundamentals 101 book*

Excuse me?! I really really hope you didnt mean to imply that your perceived one-player-DVD rental system is a *good* thing but good gosh man, it certainly certainly will not be cheaper!

Too often people such as the parent here get tangled up in a business idea that seems simple to reproduce or that there are many players (businesses) that are identical and then cast that area of business as needing only one of said businesses to exist. To that I say no! No no no no. Look at Coke and Pepsi. Virtually the same damn thing and both do very well! And we as consumers benefit. Microsoft has a 90% stranglehold on marketshare, would you say that we benefit in quality, cost and inovation in their one-player-sytem?

Re:Competition

[Elwood P Dowd]

It seems to me that the there is really only room for one DVD rental-by-mail service.

Dunno why you say that. Yes, it is "one of those commodity items that becomes cheaper to run on a per-customer basis the more customers you have" but it is also a service that can vary in quality. You might prefer Netflix because it is cheaper or has a better website, while someone else may prefer ChristianFlix because it provides them with censored movies. Someone else might prefer IndieFlix because the website is better suited to their tastes.

Yes, the company with the biggest scale may be the cheapest, but I don't see why there isn't room for niche players. Greencine is profitable and not dying, and it's *tiny* compared to Netflix. If Greencine can make money doing what they do, I bet if other companies find their niche, they'll survive too.

Re:Competition

[utexaspunk]

(fixing formatting...)

It seems to me that markets, at least in terms of big nationwide brands, mostly tend toward duopolies with a few other minor players. They often are red vs. blue, as well-

Coke vs. Pepsi
Target vs. Wal-Mart
Costco vs. Sam's
Home Depot vs. Lowe's
Netflix vs. Blockbuster Petsmart vs. Petco
Nike vs. Reebok
Marlboro vs. Camel
Republicans vs. Democrats

Anyone else notice this? Can you think of any more?

Minor Setback

[__aanmcy3303]

...the world's largest retailer couldn't beat the Internet upstart at its own game.

I doubt that it isn't going to stop Wal-Mart from squashing thousands of other upstarts.

Don't under estimate the power of the Dark Side

[multiOSfreak]

Netflix has been turned to the Dark Side. All hail the mighty Wal-Vader!

Re:WalMart = Microsoft of retail

[geoffspear]

Nah, it's just outsourcing. Giving up the market would involve shutting down their service altogether instead of getting someone else to do it.

And apparently they were smart enough to realize that a DVD-by-mail service for US customers just can't be run out of China for cheaper.

Re:Summary has it backwards

[east coast]

Walmart bought Netflix, not t'other way round.

From what I read no one bought anyone. Netflix is going to get the old Wal-Mart customer base but NetFlix is going to offer a sales link to Wal-Mart. I don't see it as a buy and sell but rather allowing each company to focus on either rental or retail. If anything both sides stand to profit from this; NetFlix gets the customer base on rentals and Wal-Mart can focus on the retail DVD market while dumping what was probably a less than profitable side venture along with what is basically free advertising from NetFlix.

Re:Canceled

[east coast]

don't you get it? YOU WON! WE WON! Wal-Mart didn't buy out the little guy.

We won? Who's this we in "we won"? Do you own netflix or shares there of? Are you an employee?

Don't fool yourself. Netflix is only seen as small because they don't have the customer base yet. Given time and bad luck on the part of Blockbuster you'll see that Netflix is another corporation. Netflix isn't on a crusade, it's trying to make money and grow. That's the nature of all profitable business.

Not trying to be an ass about it but a small company getting a bit of advantage from a large company doesn't mean the small company isn't just as greedy or just as left-handed about their business practices. Not that I feel that Netflix is bad in any way, at least no more so than any other corporation.

Re:A Win For The Little Guys

[shdragon]

Netflix is not a "little guy". Netflix is a publicly traded company NFLX ticker with a goal of reaching 4 million subscribers by year's end. I honestly think Walmart's going to walk away the winner here. They get to ditch their profit losing segment while simotaneously gaining free virtual endorsement from Walmart as their pick as the place to buy DVDs. FWIW, I don't think Netflix is evil like Walmart is, but calling them a "little guy" hardly seems apt given their situation.

Re:Please

[sv0f]

Free (Freak) Republic no more defines traditional conservatism than Democratic Underground defines traditional liberalism. It's just a forum for extremely reactionary Bushbots and GOP partisans.

Your right, they don't define "traditional conservativism." But then, those currently in control of the Republican party and the Federal Government are not traditional conservatives either. The grandparent's post is accurate with respect to the post-Contract-for-America Republican party. You don't like it? Then stop voting for those wackos.