View Full Version : WTF is the point of a "rental exclusive?"
skin87
09-30-2009, 04:31 AM
The Brothers Bloom DVD is available at Blockbuster and Netflix today, but will not go on sale until 2010. Can anyone figure out the business plan behind this? It's not like it is exclusive to one rental place, so it's not like they are getting paid to delay the for sale release. And then you got people like me who has been dying to see the movie again since it left theaters. If it was for sale today I would have bought it. Now I am going to Netflix it and by the time it is for sale, maybe I will have had my fill and no longer want to buy it. So does anyone have any idea what their angle is on a "rental exclusive."
az0madman
09-30-2009, 06:14 AM
It's available?! Thanks for telling me. Wish I knew it before they shipped out the DVD today. :(
First I've heard of rental exclusives. I'd complain if I wasn't with Netflix. Though it doesn't make any sense why DVDs are produced yet not being sold.
stubadub
09-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Back in the old days pretty much everything was a rental exclusive. Movies would come out on VHS at the $100 price point because only rental stores were interested in purchasing movies, so they were priced accordingly. It would take nearly a year or so for films to be offered more cheaply, and only the most popular were easy to find. It was first kid's releases, then huge blockbusters, and finally DVD to change this pricing scheme.
Maybe they figured that sales to the average consumer would me small, and were able to get these two rental chains to pay more or order more copies based on the exclusive rights, knowing that most of the people interested enough to own the movie would still be interested a few months from now.
krypt
09-30-2009, 03:09 PM
I was so excited for this movie to come out on DVD and to be able to get it yesterday but soon found out it wasn't for sale and got really confused. stubadub's reason seems to make sense but it still sucks
masherscf
09-30-2009, 04:13 PM
My guess is that they don't have enough money to promote the DVD for sales to the general public. So, they release the DVD to rental outlets at a high price point to generate some capital for the general release. This does seem to portent the return to the two-tiered home video pricing scheme.
tokenuser
09-30-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't think its anything to particularly get worked up about.
Studios need to explore different distribution models.
It used to be that they made most of their money off box office receipts ... then it was more off video rentals (VHS/DVD days).
If a movie was any good, you'd want to see it at a cinema, then you'd run out an buy it.
Brothers Bloom didn't generate the box office buzz for the general public to want to go out and buy it. Putting it out as a rental exclusive might generate a bigger buzz for sales, since people will take a risk of $5 to rent a movie vs $10/person to see one at the cinema. More people see it, more people might want to buy it.
satori
09-30-2009, 04:46 PM
I'm thinking the studio is simply looking for another revenue stream
Though it doesn't make any sense why DVDs are produced yet not being sold.
It reminds me of the old VHS days when you could really only rent movies from the store and you had to wait months before you could purchase the movie for home. To buy one earlier from say, Blockbuster would cost a hundred bucks.
Vegan
10-01-2009, 01:04 AM
I used to work at Suncoast back in the day and got a kick out of explaining to people day-in-day-out that you CAN buy Movie X but it's gonna cost you!
Usually they wouldn't believe me, thinking I was fucking with them, and then storm off telling me that they were going to Wal-mart or whatever, who will be glad to sell them a copy for less than a hundred dollars. Oh, the times we had.
stubadub
10-01-2009, 03:32 AM
I used to work at Suncoast back in the day and got a kick out of explaining to people day-in-day-out that you CAN buy Movie X but it's gonna cost you!
Usually they wouldn't believe me, thinking I was fucking with them, and then storm off telling me that they were going to Wal-mart or whatever, who will be glad to sell them a copy for less than a hundred dollars. Oh, the times we had.
I had similar fun working at Knightime Video, a local rental store where I grew up, when I had to tell them how much they were going to have to pay for a movie that they lost. "Hey, we're going to cut you some slack. You only have to pay us $60." would usually be followed by some swearing while the customer stormed out of the building.
trunolimit
10-01-2009, 05:44 AM
why would apple only sell phones through AT&T when they can sell twice as many phones selling them to t-mobile as well?
Vegan
10-01-2009, 05:48 AM
why would apple only sell phones through AT&T when they can sell twice as many phones selling them to t-mobile as well?
AT&T delivering them sacks of cash?
scoparker
10-01-2009, 07:00 AM
Does anyone know if Brothers Bloom is available in Canadian Blockbusters?
- Scott
nshady
10-01-2009, 08:33 AM
While you all complain, I'm still waiting for the cinematic release (November, last I checked).
masherscf
10-01-2009, 01:03 PM
Usually they wouldn't believe me, thinking I was fucking with them, and then storm off telling me that they were going to Wal-mart or whatever, who will be glad to sell them a copy for less than a hundred dollars. Oh, the times we had.
Good luck with that!
Ironically, it was probably Wal-Mart that killed the two-tiered system. I think they released that you could make money off videos priced for a general released
trunolimit
10-01-2009, 01:58 PM
AT&T delivering them sacks of cash?
yeah but because AT&T's network sucks most people are saying the iPhone sucks because it keeps dropping calls and the 3g is slow or just doesn't work at all. Had it been on more than one network they would have sold way more phones and not had the phones rep tarnished by bad service.
I think the whole thing boils down too the big wigs didn't think their products would sell well so they tried to get guaranteed money instead of if and maybe money. the studios saw that a rental exclusive would guarantee them a certain amount of money and steve jobs saw that have an exclusive deal with a major cell carrier would guarantee a certain cash-flo
stubadub
10-01-2009, 05:06 PM
yeah but because AT&T's network sucks most people are saying the iPhone sucks because it keeps dropping calls and the 3g is slow or just doesn't work at all. Had it been on more than one network they would have sold way more phones and not had the phones rep tarnished by bad service.
I think the whole thing boils down too the big wigs didn't think their products would sell well so they tried to get guaranteed money instead of if and maybe money. the studios saw that a rental exclusive would guarantee them a certain amount of money and steve jobs saw that have an exclusive deal with a major cell carrier would guarantee a certain cash-flo
Actually the reason AT&T has the exclusive US rights is because traditionally the carrier would direct the phone manufacturers to make the phones to their specifications, and set certain requirements. Apple didn't want to be hindered by the old business model, and AT&T was reportedly the only company that was willing to essentially give them carte blanche so that they could make the phone without carrier intervention. AT&T agreed to do so as long as they had exclusive rights to the phone for an undisclosed number of years.
I know that there are people out there that think the iPhone sucks, but the phone has a significant number of satisfied users, and is one of the most succesful devices in history. Take a look at Google to see iPhone sales, Apple's profits and stock price trends over the last 3 years since the iPhone was introduced. It's hard to fault Apple for a decision that has worked out so well for them.
krypt
10-03-2009, 01:40 AM
While you all complain, I'm still waiting for the cinematic release (November, last I checked).
For a second there I thought it was getting re-released in theaters and got really excited
trunolimit
10-03-2009, 03:24 AM
Actually the reason AT&T has the exclusive US rights is because traditionally the carrier would direct the phone manufacturers to make the phones to their specifications, and set certain requirements. Apple didn't want to be hindered by the old business model, and AT&T was reportedly the only company that was willing to essentially give them carte blanche so that they could make the phone without carrier intervention. AT&T agreed to do so as long as they had exclusive rights to the phone for an undisclosed number of years.
I know that there are people out there that think the iPhone sucks, but the phone has a significant number of satisfied users, and is one of the most succesful devices in history. Take a look at Google to see iPhone sales, Apple's profits and stock price trends over the last 3 years since the iPhone was introduced. It's hard to fault Apple for a decision that has worked out so well for them.
really phone companies dictate what goes into a phone? that is just retarded but i guess phone manufacturers have no choice they are relying on their networks. I guess that is why steve jobs is a multi millionaire and I'm just a guy on a forum :(