NY Times on DVD vs. Video-on-Demand
Greg sent in a NY Times story about a Forrester Research study of video-on-demand customers.
Households where someone recently watched an on-demand movie bought only 1 percent fewer DVD’s each year than they had before they discovered the cable service, which amounts to about one-tenth of a disc. The survey contacted 4,581 households in late 2005; 321 said they had watched an on-demand movie within the last three months.But the story was different for DVD rentals. Video-on-demand watchers said they rented about 11 percent fewer movies than before.
I don't get the point of the article. People will buy X number of movies irrespective of whether they rent by mail or do VOD. The act of buying is not related to the choice between the rental or the VOD type of viewing. And obviously people who use VOD will rent fewer disks, just like people who rent will rent more disks if they don't do VOD.
Posted by: CJ | August 08, 2006 at 02:08 PM
The number of movies ppl buy or watch is not constant. ppl watch more than they did 10-20 yrs ago. The convenience and value of rental subscription plans lets us see far more than if we had to buy tickets and expensive cable or satellite service. I don't see VOD making much dent in DVD sales or rentals, since it costs more and has more restrictions. Movies watched is largely based on cost. The higher the price, the less buyers / viewers. VOD is another rip-off scheme from the greedy cable monopolies. It's as lame as Pay-Per-View and all their other over-priced schemes. They're appealing to a small market of naive people, who have more money than sense.
Posted by: NetflixShill | August 08, 2006 at 03:47 PM
"VOD is another rip-off scheme from the greedy cable monopolies. It's as lame as Pay-Per-View and all their other over-priced schemes. They're appealing to a small market of naive people, who have more money than sense."
Oh. My. God. I actually agree with you on something. hehe ;)
and once again ANOTHER NY Times article about Netflix? don't they have more important things to cover? seems like every other day there is a new one
Posted by: Super-Bat-Man | August 08, 2006 at 06:31 PM
Current pricing of VOD is about that of a video store rental in this market ( DC ), and if it weren't for the DVD window of release ( +60, +90 days ) might be reasonable.
More significantly, when I did Comcast, the free HBO and Showtime VOD ( free ) was a pretty good deal. Sopranos, The Wire, etc was available back like six episodes. Plus whatever the Saturday premeire was.
I often agree to some extent to Shill, it is the virulent, dramatic black and white extremes that alienate the hell out of me. Additionally, his ego cosmic size centrism, is too much ( not to mention knee jerk ). Why should I care if he would *NEVER* buy ( you name it ) Newspapers, pornography, DRMed hardware, VOD, yada, yada. There is more...than dreamt in your...
Nothing, including the VOD issue, is that black and white. I often buy the high price VOD in hotels - movies that are often still in theaters. And, some movie I really wanted to see, in the mood to see, was on VOD I wouldn't be opposed to the occasional indulgence.
People buy entire wardrobes for their pets, certainly that allows me the mad money purchase of a few VOD movies.
Posted by: WeaselBuddha | August 08, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Shill,
Know Jim Carroll? The Junkie Poet Musician Athlete? One of my favorite quotes of him is "Excess Breeds Tolerance" - a reduction of the more famous Blake quote, wisdom, excess and palaces if I remember right.
Posted by: WeaselBuddha | August 08, 2006 at 08:56 PM
I don't think this article even mentions Netflix, unless as an agent of renting DVDS.
This short articles is about VOD usage and how it doesn't reduce purchases of DVDs - though does impact rentals.
Take a look at the article.
Posted by: WeaselBuddha | August 08, 2006 at 11:15 PM