Slashdot Mirror
A Workable Downloadable Movies Business Model?
sane? writes "Following on from the music industry attempting to push up the cost of iTunes music downloads comes word that Sony is looking take robust control of the pricing for legal movie downloads - to the tune of $8 a movie. What is the maximum acceptable price that slashdot readers would give to different types of downloadable product, taking into account their perception of its true value to them? How can sensible pricing and workable business models be reconciled?"
Well, if Sony is going to be trying to install rootkits onto my computer, they could not pay me to download their movies. Screw-em.
However, barring malware distribution by major corporations, I believe that Apple has showed the industry exactly the business model to follow for media distribution, so, provided a fair and reasonable DRM policy like that of iTunes, I would be more than happy to pay $5/movie, but not more than that. Come on now, the industry has the opportunity here to make far more money off of not just recently released movies, but following a long-tail model, they could make obscene amounts of money off of older movies/content that is no longer available or being distributed. Think about all the old classic Sci-Fi movies or classic movies that are only available on TCM on occasion? What if you really could watch them "on demand" rather than waiting for them to rotate through. How about old TV shows?
Being able to watch movies at home on your computer or on your laptop on the plane is not just a convenience that they should be charging premium costs for. It is a mass market scheme to drive insanely high revenues if the price point is made attractive. If they were smart, these movies would be made available more cheaply and the "premium" experience could still be had at the theatre.
So, for an industry that already is sitting on media that is no longer generating significant income, they have the opportunity to create potential huge revenue streams for media already bought and paid for, so why gouge the customer? It is a surefire recipe for slower adoption, delayed revenue streams and potentially failure.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
FTFA, $8 is the price that Sony is expected to be charging the content distributors. This is not the price that we would be paying as end consumers, which would look more like it would be to the tune of $10, or something along those lines.
Of course, this would probably all be highly compressed, DRMed to hell video files, too. Given that I can go to a local Wal-Mart or Target and get a lot of these old titles for $6 at full quality, and make my backups using something like CloneDVD, I'm not likely to be purchasing a $10 movie download anytime soon.
A community-oriented lyrics site
For me, the cost would have to be the same or less than a movie rental for me to buy in. $8 is too much. I'd say $2.99 is about right -- and I don't care if the $2.99 movie expires after a certain period of time or anything. Like I said, 99% of the time I just watch a movie once.
Sam
If I can burn it to a DVD, watch it on ANY DVD player, and treat it as if it were mine (IE, let my friend borrow the disc), then yes, I'll pay 8 dollars/movie. Otherwise, I'll keep my netflix subscription thank you very much.
--sig fault--
It's hard to say where the limit would be, but 8 bucks simply is too much - I can go to a video rental place and get pretty much every movie I want for considerably less than that (the local one in the town where I live charges up to 4,50 per movie, depending on how recent it is; not sure what the big chains take).
Sure, it requires me to walk there first (I don't have to drive, considering that it's pretty much just across the street), and they might not have what I'm looking for; but on the upside, I get the movie within minutes instead of having to wait for a big download first.
So for me at least, an online place would have to be considerably cheaper than a real store in order to be attractive. And considering that a lot of the costs associated with having an actual walk-in store with real DVDs and real employees don't exist here, I'd say that they could still make a comparable amount of money even if they charged less than the offline stores do, too.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
How much is a bittorrent client again?
-Charlie
P.S. If you think the current rootkitting DRM schemes are bad, wait till you see the next gen ones, like the ones for HD movies. Yikes.
Everyone above me got it right. This idea fails pretty hard. Now, Sony's going to dump more money into a project that -- if anything -- will only take business away from actual DVD sales. Most people that are willing to buy a lesser product because it's finally legal won't be getting the physical disc too, which means less money for Sony. "How do I shot web?" indeed...
If I don't get a seperated backup copy (an actual, physical DVD), I will pay no more than 20% of the DVD price.
This isn't like music where one usually only wants 1-3 tracks from the album. Buying 1-3 tracks from a CD, you're paying... 20%!
I'd want the same discount on a downloaded movie, 20% for what I want, even though that's (usually) the entire thing.
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
If we are talking new "On at the cinema" movies, I would pay just under what the local cinema charges me; primarily because you get surround sound at the cinema.
If we are talking "Out on DVD" movies, I would pay up to 50% of the cost of the DVD version... I mean with a internet version you get "nothing"; with the DVD version you get higher quality, a box, a disk and perhaps bonus features.
I am from the UK -- And purchased a couple of lost episodes even though the DVD versions of series 2 will be cheaper; but those episodes aren't on in the UK yet, and thus the extra cost was well worth it.
I would also be willing to pay a smaller fee to "rent" an internet movie (one that stops playing after n time limit)... So like $3.50 and you get to watch a new movie for a week wouldn't be all too crazy...
I don't get this phenomenon of wanting to watch movies on your cell phone or iPod or even sitting at your desk in from of your computer.
To me, movies are a *big* experience; I want a nice big screen, a great sound system, dim the lights, a big bowl of popcorn and a giant soda.
Watching movies on "cell phone" is contrary to everything I hold dear about the cinematic experience.
Sam
For 8 bucks they better include at least 20 min of previews before the movie
The Digital Couture Collection
At most, I'd be willing to pay half of what it costs to buy the DVD at Wal-Mart. This assumes that the download is of comparable quality and includes any extras that are usually reserved for DVD.
I see little reason to pay more than half, considering how much cheaper it is for the studios to put it out on the internet rather than produce, package and ship DVD's. In fact, even if the internet downloaded movie costs half as much as the store bought DVD, the studio will still make more money from the transaction.
Of course, this is all a pipe-dream. Looking at the track record of greed and abuse by the movie studios and their lackeys, you can be sure that internet downloaded movies will have artificially high prices. They'll intro the service at $8 for all movies, and then after a year or so they'll start demanding $15 for new releases. And, to top it off: you know there is no way in hell that these downloads will be legally transferable. If I buy a DVD, and decide it blows, I can at least take it down to the pawn shop or give it to someone else. Can the same thing be said with these DRM laden downloads? I seriously doubt it.
/dev/random
I use an existing model - Netflix - to determine reasonable pricing. It's about $1 per DVD (including any extras). For that dollar, Netflix is able to pay round-trip postage (i.e., network transport) and give the movie industry their cut.
Movie downloads should cost no more that $1.
Music downloads, compared to other media downloads (movies, above), should cost no more than 10 cents per track or $1 per album.
After all, I can go to my local library and get the DVDs/CDs for zero dollars.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
"Watching movies on "cell phone" is contrary to everything I hold dear about the cinematic experience."
But more inline with *today's* cinema experience, now the annoying teens can talk on their cell phone and watch the movie. Now that's convergence.
--- witty signature
I'd be willing to pay more for the movie if it came with the source code to the root kit that they wanted to intall on my machine to enforce DRM in order for me to watch it...
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
I would like to cut through the phony unrealistic responses.
I keep seeing posts saying "I won't pay $8 for a movie" even though that is what 4 million people do every day. Today you pay $8 to go to a theater, wait in line, watch 20 minutes of previews, watch 10 minutes of commercials, listen to cell phones and annoying people... Yet suddenly $8 is too much to pay. Oh, right: I post on Slashdot, so nobody must know that I once bought a Brittany Spears CD or that I watch anything other than the Sci Fi channel. Oh the horror!
Another poster said that they would only pay $2.99 because they would rather rent. That makes some sense. Except that the very same poster points out that they currently pay more than $2.99 and that they must also include the price of gas, the chance of the rental store being out of stock, and the time involved in finding the movie.
Maybe asking people what they would pay for a product is just not a realistic way to determine what it is really worth. People say $8 isn't worth it, then the go buy it anyway.
Do you buy many movies on DVD, or is $20 for a movie on DVD too much in your opinion? The price you're offering is 1/4 the going rate for most movies, and so it seems like a pretty lowball offer to me. It would cost you nearly $4 to rent the movie, and that means you have to return it.
A DVD is more flexible (at the moment) than a downloaded movie. It can play on any computer or DVD player, which is a cheap device. Your downloaded movie would be considerably harder to play on your TV or portable device, and even if they were to incorporate the DRM code to allow you to authorize that device it would be inconveninent and jack up the price of that object.
So, let's say that DRM'ed downloads would be of less general utility than the DVD. The downloads would have some advantages (e.g. the ability to back them up), but that's relatively minor.
Still, it sounds like you're really lowballing them on the price at a mere five bucks. Can I then infer that you think that $20 for a DVD as it is now is too much, and that you don't buy many DVDs?
Not to mention the transportation costs, and the retailer's cut. And the person buying would have to buy a DVD burner and blank disks. Maybe they can provide the disk image to be put on the cover of a LightScribe disk for another buck.
A Brilliant Mind An interesting movie. About a very smart man with a brain disorder that enabled (forced) him into creating a parallel reality that simply wasn't there. All his energy and brilliance went into coping with this imaginary world.
He was able to regain his senses and apply his intelligence to real-world problems. For this he was acclaimed and honored. But for the rest of his life, he was never sure whether the people that he met or even his interaction with daily routine was real or part of his unbalanced imagination.
Such an apt metaphor for the movie industry. $8 downloads per title is fantasy, and all the financial projections based on such a figure are fantasies. Maybe, just maybe, for some excellent movies, for some wealthy people, $1 per download might work.
Movies are simply too available now for there to be any vast difference in price between what is there and what is new. Blank DVD ROMs are about 25 cents each. This is the current 'swap meet-water cooler exchange' rock-bottom price for a movie. Anything above this price is the utility that is added by the MPAA companies. Store prices of last years theater releases are $15. That's the max upper price for a physical disk, box, packaging, and resellable legal license. Older movies go for $5 for the same deal, regardless of quality.
So what Sony is saying is that their new movies are so good, so special that they are worth far more than any of the titles of the 20th century. And this is so without the disk and packaging. And you have to pay for the downloading and storage costs.
Such incredible arrogance.
I give them about 10 years before they're gone. And that's because they are such an integrated hardware-software company and have a lot of built-up good will from the 20th century to squander on madness.
Someday, someone will point out to them that the era of 200 million dollar movies with $30 theater tickets-popcorn-baby sitter costs are over. Whether the fantasy infected minds of the top executives will be able to separate reality from fantasy will determine the fate of their company and the people who work for them.
the latter identifiable by the snapping of their fingers when they approve of something, and the plucked double-bass tones they make when they walk.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Netflix has already established what the market will bear. Its a little under $2 per movie (12 movies a month for around $22). Yes, I know that's for rentals, not purchases (wink, nod). Sony is welcome to try for $8 but they're in for a painful learning experience if they do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Here's a new perspective, If they want online sales to be a success world over, they have to consider price thresholds at local markets. I am currently staying in India and 8$ is unheard of, with rampant piracy you really think people would be willing to pay 8$, when they could get it for under a dollar? We pay 150 Rupees at Multiplexes to watch a movie that's 3$ and that is considered expensive cause hey we can get a burger at mc'Ds for 20 Rupees that less than 50 cents. At normal theatres with cheaper seats we could prolly see the same movie for as low as 1.5 $. So for it to work here, It would have to be 3$ or less, considering that you'd get a better experience at a theatre.
I mis-stated what I meant
/risk analysis and decide that the teeny risk of getting caught by the **AA is not a big deal. Yes, the copyright holders are trying to make this riskier, but honestly - unless they haul tens of thousands of people to courts, it's a losing battle.
:)
Replace my sentence with
"Basically what you can obtain today (ab)using bittorrent".
Not taking any stance on legality or morality or any of that. Fact is that lots of people are currently offering what lots of people want. For free. With the caveat that it's not legal. People make cost/benefit
The fact remains, as long as nobody is offering a competiting legal option that offers the same quality and ease of use with just as few strings attached, there is NO HOPE WHATSOEVER that the paid option would become popular.
- Choice 1: High quality, new releases, no DRM strings, pretty easy to find what you want (+free, illegal)
- Choice 2: Lesser quality, releases made available who knows when, braindead DRM restricting common fair uses, limited selection based on rightsholders whim (+pay money, legal)
The last bits - money/legality is NOT whats gonna make or break choice 2 from the plate. The other stuff decides if anyone is interested. The day someone rolls out a service that gives high quality, new releases (at least on par with DVD launch somewhere in the world), no DRM and wide selection, that someone will make a killing for the movie studios (and probably bunch of money themselves as well).
Any current halfhearted attempts at video download services are completely and utterly TRASHED by the free/illegal option. ONLY pay-to-download video services that offer what the purchasers want (just the quicktime/avi/divx/whatever, no strings, reasonable price/quality ratio) are, unsurprisingly, services offering p0rn... I mean what *other* stuff you can pay-for-DL at or above DVD resolutions without DRM crap except p0rn?
The ONE AND ONLY REASON iTunes became popular is because the 'DRM' is a non-DRM. You pay, you download, you burn CD, it's yours - plain and normal CD.
Give me 'You pay, you download, you burn DVD, it's yours to watch', and don't overcharge - instant hit. Doesn't matter if its 9GB to leech. People have broadband connections that are currently 95% unused. Some ISPs might groan, but people will happily leech away even if it takes couple of days to get the whole thing. Add crappier resolution versions for those who don't want to wait - give the choice to the customer (without charging extra).
So, Sony could price these things at 2 cents and I wouldn't touch them.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
What is the maximum acceptable price that slashdot readers would give to different types of downloadable product, taking into account their perception of its true value to them?
Personally, if content is DRM-crippled in any way (such that I cannot freely convert it and copy it to all devices I own, etc) then its true value to me is basically zero. I would be willing to pay $8.00 US to download a high-quality (TV-quality or better) movie that was not DRM-crippled. I would be willing to pay no more than about $0.50 US to download the same DRM-crippled content.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
The problem is that there are two kinds of movies. The ones that suck and feel more like a waste of time then some proper entertainment. And then there are the occasional good movies which are worth some money. For me, there are only a few great movies that I'd like to keep and be able to view more then once. (My girlfriend wouldn't mind watching some movies 50 times ;) )
For those great movies that I'd like to keep, I'm willing to pay a bit more. $8 would be too much for me though. If the quality is exceptional I'd say around $5.
For the movies that I only want to see once. No more then $2.
Please, don't forget to include the $150 purchase price of Windows XP, since there's no way in hell that this will be available on Linux.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....