Warner Bros. Misses the Point of Movies-on-Demand

Considering the rapid growth of streaming movies on demand, the following “service” from Warner Bros. leaves me scratching my head:

Upon the selection and purchase of a title — at $19.95 per disc — Warners will burn, package and ship the DVD to customers for receipt within an estimated five days. The studio plans to increase initial inventory in its virtual vault by 20 titles per month and make more than 300 film and TV titles available online by year’s end.

Ok, so these are movies that are not currently available for purchase on DVD any other way but why would Warner waste time and energy on a dying technology when they could offer the exact same service with a next-to-zero waiting time by making this catalogue available for on-demand streaming?  Not sure they could charge $20 a movie but they also wouldn’t have to be in the DVD delivery business.

I guess having this service available for the technological stragglers is all well and good but it is disheartening that there is no mention of a complimentary streaming service.  Without that option, it means that these movies will quickly end up on the torrent tracker sites where those not willing the wait five days for the movie will happily download it for free.

Another missed opportunity that will be blamed on pirates instead of on the head-in-the-sand mentality of the studios.

Movie Industry Continues Idiotic On-Going No-Win War on Digital On-Demand

In their latest attempt to hold onto their self-proclaimed crumbling empire, the major movie studios are forcing(?) NetFlix and iTunes to remove films from “watch-now” libraries when those same films reach their network TV release window.

This is absurd on so many levels, not the least of which is best put by CNet:

“Normally, release windows don’t affect retailers or video-rental services after they’ve begun selling or renting films. Warner Bros. doesn’t go into Best Buy and pull DVDs off the shelf when Comcast airs Casablanca. The corner Mom and Pop video store doesn’t surrender copies of Gladiator to Universal Studios when the film appears on ABC. But Internet stores are being treated differently. What this means for iTunes and Netflix customers is that movies will pop in and out of the services.” (via)

Not only does this not make sense, but there is no way that having the films available online is going to stop someone dumb enough to watch the edited, commericialed movie on netw0rk TV when they can just rent it – or easily find it on a BitTorrent site.

At the end of the day, this is the major studios once again doing everything in their power to make it a pain in the ass the watch the movies they make.

And they wonder why the pirates do so well.  Here’s a hint: they meet the needs of their customers.

South Korea Leads the Way to DVD Death

Little piece in the NYT is pretty much the clearest example of the canary in the coal mines for DVDs.

Warner Brothers is changing the way they do business in South Korea.

“It will now start renting moves over the Internet two weeks before they are released on DVDs, making South Korea the first market in the world where movies will appear online before they hit the store shelves.”

Since technology rarely moves backward, it would be tough to make an argument that the same thing won’t be happening here in the States sooner than later.

I wonder what the DRM situation is in S. Korea…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Warner Bros. To Release Films On Demand In South Korea Two Weeks Before DVD Release

The Essence of What I’ve Been Saying…

In a long piece on plans by Warner Bros. to launch an Essence Magazine branded web presence I read this:

“Although the letters “TV” make up the Warner Bros. unit’s name, WBTVG president Bruce Rosenblum said that the group has a wider mission these days. “For the last several years, we haven’t considered ourselves as simply being in the TV business. We view ourselves as being in the content business, and whether that content is delivered over the television screen or for the cell phone or a computer, that distinction doesn’t matter.”

This is the sort of platform-agnostic approach I have been making for the past year.  My only addendum is that all content does not work on all platforms.  I still see far more repurposing of existing content for emerging mediums than the creation of content organic to the new platforms.

Does that mean one can be platform-agnostic and still serve multiple needs?  Sure, but it is a lot harder than making “Extra on Essence” – the first big move by WB.  Really?  Yup.  They’re taking the TV entertainment “news” show “Extra”, cutting it down to only a few minutes an episode, giving it black hosts and an urban twist and calling it “Extra on Essence.”

If this is forward thinking, I’m gonna cry.