Slashdot Mirror


Netflix May Already Be Killing Blockbuster?

Mattintosh writes "A blogger at C|Net takes a moment to consider the impact Netflix has had on Blockbuster. Some notable highlights include heavy losses ($35 million), job cuts ($45 million worth), and store closings: 'Much like the print media and retail stores refusing to change, Blockbuster has been a victim on an online company finding new and inventive ways of bringing a product to a customer. And due to its size and outdated corporate culture, there really is no salvation for Blockbuster at this point. Try as it might, the future of Blockbuster is bleak, at best. Sure, the company still enjoys revenue that climb into the billions of dollars, but with an ever-increasing net loss and a public refusal to focus on Total Access--the area where Netflix continues to dominate--what is the impetus for us to jump on the Blockbuster bandwagon?'"

5 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Needless to say... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the netflix settup uses fewer copies of movies, because each individual shipping location covers a larger population than a given brick and mortar blockbuster. Basically, the statistics of it say they need fewer padding copies to cover the (unexpected) surges in demand. This means that even though the same total amount of renting happens, the movie studios see fewer dollars as a result.

    I know my statement appeared as a general hatred of the MPAA, without much forethought, but they do lose money with netflix compared to brick and mortar.

    This whole argument depends on netflix and blockbuster both having sensible purchasing policies with demand analysis. I don't know that.

  2. Re:Don't they have a similar service now by siriuskase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they had a system where the top items in my queue were in the store when I returned a DVD, it seems that would beat the service I get from Netflix. They don't need to always have MovieC in inventory, but if it is near the top of my queue, they can arrange to have it in stock, then after I rent and return it, they can send it off to wherever else it might be wanted. All the stores in a region could share the less popular movies. And I rent a lot of TV series. You don't even need to look at my queue to know what I will want next since I watch each season in order, and if I like the show, I watch the seasons in order, too. A system like that would easily beat Netflix since the transit time would be shorter.

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  3. Re:Thank Big Tel/Cable by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just don't get it. I refuse to go to Blockbuster and I cannot justify Netflix's fees and I really like to watch movies (I consider watching three or four movies a month above average). I go to the local grocery store and up to their DVD kiosk and rent a movie for 24 hours at 1.05 (including tax).

    I drive by the store containing the kiosk (which is directly across the street from Blockbuster and Hollywood) at least several times a day. I'd rather put my money there ($5 for a rental at Blockbuster? Please.) and have slim pickings than go to Blockbuster.

    Can someone please explain to me why you are willing to pay astronomical monthly fees for Netflix on a recurring basis and you might not even get your #1 choices? I just don't understand how the business model survives.

  4. Re:Thank Big Tel/Cable by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't speak for everyone else, but personally, I find Netflix fantastic at providing me access to a seemingly bottomless library of old, independent and foreign movies. I tend to have rather esoteric tastes, so paying for a subscription that is almost on-demand for just about anything I could want is well worth it. Basically they have all the stuff that more space-constrained institutions (Kiosks, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc) can't be bothered with . To that end, I've never had to wait for a movie to become available.

    Now on the other hand: if all you want to do is see the major releases and not pay $10 to see it in a theater, then cruising the video kiosk is certainly the way to go.

  5. Re:Needless to say... by GWBasic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This means that even though the same total amount of renting happens, the movie studios see fewer dollars as a result.

    About a year ago, I stumbled into a forum where film makers were talking about current distribution trends. Apparently, Netflix is considered a major distribution venue, and is quite profitable for films that normally wouldn't see a wide distribution. Some independant filmmakers see Netflix as a godsend.

    There was some discussion on some of Netflix's constraints; Netflix will only carry DVDs that are at least 1 hour in length. This causes some documentary producers to stick 10-15 minutes of filler into a special edit for Netflix.