A while back when I was writing about movie piracy I happened across an article that stated if the studios really want to work with the consumer and help slow down online piracy, they need to make movies available on the same day across multiple platforms. It was an interesting thought.
I’m guessing Warner Bros. was not listening.
Netflix announced a new agreement with Warner Bros. that is going to allow them to have more direct-to-video offerings and streaming titles from Warner Bros., but there’s a massive catch… One that leaves the consumer out in the cold.
This agreement is going to force Netflix to wait 28 days after a movie has been released for sale on DVD/Blu-ray before they can offer it up as a new rental to members.
I’m surprised that Warners would create this kind of agreement. In the consumer market, I speak my opinion with my wallet – but sometimes that’s very difficult if a particular movie is released that totally knocks your socks off and you want to get your hands on it ASAP. Of course, that’s what Warner Bros. is banking on, isn’t it?
Other studios are probably sitting back and waiting to see how this pans out, but we know how it’s going to end up as some folks will indeed buy the DVDs who might have otherwise just rented them during the first month of release. But for those who tend to rent more than buy this is no bargain. Renting is the more economical method to see a movie and if you cannot afford theater tickets or the purchase price of DVDs, you’re going to be punished and made to wait even longer now.
WB says 75% of a DVD title’s sale takes place in the first 4 weeks of its release. So even with rentals being available at the same time as purchased discs, they’re making 75% of their sales in those initial weeks. So why the reason for the wait? To drive that number to 80% or 85%? Is that worth the ire they’re going to raise among movie fans?
Netflix, playing ball with their new arrangement, calls this a win-win situation all around. They call it win-win because they will get more titles and projects from Warner Bros. to offer their customers. But I have to wonder about this “offering more to the customer” bit. In time, won’t we all be able to access this stuff online anyway? It is the digital age. It is inevitable. It looks like Warner Bros. is jumping the gun on the future to make some additional bucks while they can.
Right now, I have a choice of whom I wish to support: The studio holding out on me with their rentals vs. the other studios. But if other studios follow suit, then heck, I’m not sure what I’ll do.
Regular readers know my usual stance on online movie piracy. Piracy is a big issue in the industry and this kind of bad policy is not going to help their arguments to stop it.
I’m wondering what Screen Rant readers have to say on this issue? Sound off gang! Let your comments tell Warner Bros. what you think of this. (I don’t blame Netflix. They had a business opportunity, weighed the financial pros and cons, and decided to take it.)
Source: Business Insider
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
Hugh Jackman Reveals Summer Start Date for ‘Wolverine 2′ 
Chris Hemsworth Talks ‘Thor 2′; Mads Mikkelsen Circling Villain Role [Updated] 
‘Walking Dead’ Season 3 Preview Reveals The Prison & Michonne [Updated] 
Loading ...
Being a netflix member I actually think this is a good thing for one reason only. Your article states that this will give them the oppertunity to have more streaming titles. I use the streaming titles very often. I would love to see more of a selection out there. If I have to wait 28 days to watch a movie streaming and I am having trouble waiting that long I should probably just buy it.
Awesome counter-point Stonecrusher! I hope it’s good material they stream out there to you!
no netflix for me. they have always made their policies worse and worse. and warner brothers? boycotted. ten years ago i saw a movie every week in the theater. five years ago i saw about 6 a year. 3 years 4 years ago i saw one a year. in the last two years. i’ve seen one in the theater. now, i think im just gonna leave the theater out of it. I have a film projector in my house now. they’re just making it easier for me to save money and to keep them out of it. whatever way and whenever i get to see a movie now is fine. i’m “unaddicted” now. I have yet to find a good argument for me to hand over my money. I also buy most of my films used now off of private sellers on amazon or maybe, maybe ebay and the occassional store. and the rest of the time? don’t ask, don’t tell.
Disclaimer: i am not now nor have i ever been a homosexual.
Good Post, however, it is sad that Piracy is mentioned as recourse by many people (not you ofcourse) when pricing for rentals needs to increase in an era that movies cost a fortune to make. Common blogger’s respond with, “we will just pirate the Movie if they charge more.” So if Wal-Mart increases the price of Soda, the recourse is to just “steal it.” This is not logical and truly dangerous for our society mentality and youth. Studio’s have a right to monetize on their investment. Avatar was truly entertaining and it cost Fox over $400 million to make and market to consumers, so if they want to make ensure they pay thousands of people that worked on the movie, pay some dividends to the investors, retain some earnings for future projects, and show an over profit to secure funding for the next Movie, it considered wrong and evil? Why are we not stealing GAS then, in an era where Chevron and Arco are having record breaking years in profit???? Why, do we feel it ok to steal a movie from the net unless is as close as it can get to being free? People stop jabbing way nonsense, you are paying to watch because it cost millions of dollars to make it, please understand that people. And to clarify, “Video Stores will still get WARNER New Releases on the day of its initial DVD release, whereas NETFLIX and REDBOX will not, because they are Kings of devaluating studios intellectual property.
@Sypher
‘And to clarify, “Video Stores will still get WARNER New Releases on the day of its initial DVD release, whereas NETFLIX and REDBOX will not, because they are Kings of devaluating studios intellectual property.’
I don’t know if they are the “kings” of devaluing (assuming that that is what you meant – not “devaluating”) movie studios. They are taking money away from the Blockbuster chains, not the studios. Their cost is proportional to their overhead. Redbox is an automatic kiosk, and Netflix is done by mail.
No employees/stores equals way less cost of doing business, which in turn equals lower prices for the consumer. It is not rocket science. The studio is still getting their cut. You act as if Netflix broke into the vault and started stealing DVDs and selling them for a buck a pop.
let me put it in a,b,c 1,2,3 for you: when a song comes on the radio, we had cassette tapes (now other technology) to record it right off the radio. is that piracy?
when a movie comes to t.v. and we used a vcr tape to record it off t.v. (now newer technology is there) is that piracy?
salaries: why are actors’ salaries 20-50 million$ picture? are they really, is anyone really, worth that much? why are movies much more expensive when its just computer graphics than filmed on location? that don’t even make any sense.
this is why movie tix are so expensive. but who wants to (and who has the money) to shell out $14/per flick (not including concessions, parking and the like if you do that), then they want you to rent it ($4) then they want you to buy it ($23). if you go just buy the movie prices, that is $14+$4+$23=$41 for one movie. 1 movie. that means to get the “full experience” 2 1/2 movies is $100. Now really, who’s got that kinda cash? unless of course you’re a moron and charge everything.
I-Tunes knew just how to handle music piracy. Charge $1/song and give us the devices to hear it on (Ipod$200). now that is why they are so succcessful and people are quite happy (I am) and i use i-tunes. Amazon also has deals where if you buy certain amounts of dvd/music, they send you $5 digital coupons for songs. I-tunes and Amazon are thriving and people are quite happy. and the film industry, they keep throwing us remakes, reboots and retarded crap they are trying to make us choose between paying the mortgage or “maximizing profits” and don’t EVEN get me started on double and triple-dipping on dvd releases…so go ahead, play up to the addage that “a fool and his money are soon parted”. In the words of the late, great Texas Guinan, “Hello, sucker!”
Ok first off supply & demand: sales of hard copy dvd’s have fallen off the face of the earth since the down turn in the economy and fewer people are renting now as well. It makes no sense to raise the prices and like a few other people said – Hollywood has gone nuts with what they are paying actors and the like. In an econ where so many people are taking pay cuts actors insist on getting more than they did in their last picture or more than this other actor that they are “better than” and this is why it now costs three times more to go see a movie than it did 10 years ago. Hollywood just had their biggest year ever at the box office by taking every cent they could from those of us still willing to pay it. Anyway, they are paid plenty but that is not my point. In fact I actually don’t have a point I have a question…
@Bruce
So will netflix be getting movies blockbuster doesn’t get? Will blockbuster be getting movies to rent that netflix doesn’t get for another 28 days? How is this going to work for those of us that are trying to decide between the two?
The problem is, and this is purely a generalization, that dishonest people will typically work harder at being dishonest than being honest. People committing piracy are still going to find ways to get their hands on the movies. The only ones being punished by this arrangement — if waiting for a movie can even be considered punishment — are the honest fans who just want to rent a movie. I can only assume this delay applies to all the smaller studios who release under Warner. As many movies that are being churned out on a weekly basis, I’m not sure it’s going to matter on non-blockbuster films. Waiting an extra month for the next Cuba Gooding, Jr. direct-to-video spy “thriller” might actually be a reward.
It does seem to me, though, that with this change and with the announcement a few weeks ago that the networks (like NBC) are going to stop providing their shows on DVD to Netflix, that the real target of all this is Netflix. I’ve been a customer of theirs for quite a few years and have never had a bad experience with them. That said, Netflix is a perk in life, not a necessity. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some kind of new “on demand” service from Warner in the near future.
I have to agree with jason. The target of all this seams to be to hurt Netflix. I think the studios do not like the inexpensive compatition. It is convinient and cheep. That might take away from video sales for on the fence people. I know one of the things I rent most often is TV shows that I did not have time to watch when they were on. That hurts more then the 28 day wait for movies.
I jsut started up with Netflix because of their VOD. The quality so far is great. The selection… well Im only paying $9 a month and I have access to every LOST episode. It is a no brainer.
However another reason I did it was we rent a lot and sometimes dont watch what we rent. I figure 1 or 2 DVDs via mail at that monthly price sure beats the heck out of the 3$/4$ Blockbuster price.
Now the WB is going to limit availability of new releases to Netflix? after all the flac Ive taken and spoken about “piracy” I finally try to change and support a system and this is what happens? Kind of funny if you think about it.
Yup WB is on my poop list. Netflix not so much as what was going to be their answer… No? then lose WB all together.
As a Netflix user, I’d love to see more streaming movies available. As for the new releases, if I missed it in the theaters and have to wait months for it to come out anyway I think I can wait 28 more days.
If I did catch it in the theaters, then I already saw it and can wait.
And if I absolutely must see it on the day of release I’m probably going to buy it anyway.
I think realist needs to take an economics class and possibly change his screen name. The REALITY is simple: Whether you think actors are overpaid or movies cost too much or not, the market ultimately sets that price. If film making ever stops being a lucrative business to be in (in other words when profits go down enough), then you may see ticket prices and the salaries of those involved decrease. Think about it this way; if you’re selling your car on the street, what’s one of the first things you do? Probably consult something like Kelley Blue Book or at the very least you’ll take a look at what other cars like yours are selling for and set your price within those parameters. Will you lower the price for one guy if he tells you that you are asking too much and that it is unfair? Or will you go ahead and sell it to the guy who is willing to pay what you’re asking?
This deal doesn’t really bother me, unless it sets a precedent that causes the decline of Netflix as a reliable rental provider. I am excited about more titles being available for streaming. I love that feature, and with the advent of the new blu ray players that have built in Netflix with the ability to stream straight to your TV, having more streaming titles to choose from is great for someone like me.
I don’t buy every movie that comes out, and I don’t have so much time that I HAVE to see movies as soon as they come to DVD. If I wasn’t in a hurry to see it in theaters, then I’m sure another 28 days isn’t going to bother me. Besides, I have so many films in my Netflix queue that I don’t know what to do with myself!
This doesn’t really bother me at all. If I absolutely LOVED the movie and HAVE to have it on Blu-Ray, I will buy it on the day of release. This rarely happens. Star Trek was the last Blu-Ray I bought on its release date. I love Netflix and I haven’t had a single problem with them. I DO have a problem with Time Warner (still a part of WB I assume) charging $5 for VOD for movies. THAT is why I use Netflix. $10/month and I can stream as many movies I can watch that are available AND I can get Blu-Rays. WB fails to realize that there are SO many films out there for renting on Netflix, that a delay of 28 days isn’t going to really matter to folks like me who 50+ movies in their queue.
SAM:
That’s a good observation you make… in this economy, where actors are still asking for more money for their projects.
Then those pay raises are part of what gets passed on to us in prices. Interesting vicious circle we have here, because we do want to go see our favorite actor… then they want more because of it… damn supply-and-demand!
SAM, on your other question about Netflix and Blockbuster, I just don’t know the answer to that one.
I don’t mind this. I never get movies when they first come out on netflix. I tend to go to blockbuster if I want to watch something asap. If this does up the streaming I am all for it. I got an internet hookup in my new tv and got netflix because of it. I really only have documentaries and tv shows in my instant queue because there really aren’t a ton of streaming ones yet. You will find some gems like Strange Brew or The Big Lebowski now and then, but for the most part there aren’t that many good streaming ones. I am all for more instant options so I don’t mind this. Plus if I have been dying to see a movie and been counting the days til it comes out, most likely I will go buy it (even before this netflix change)
@cram cram,
cars and films are two completely different things, REALLY. and how many people, honestly, know to look at the kelly blue book? (I for one, have never even seen a blue book). it also depends (talking about cars here) if you sell it at all. there are so many factors to consider and if it sits for awhile without getting sold, then you do what you gotta do. your market is limited very locally.
now, when it comes to film, most people will just pay whatever (like yourself) and because of people like you, film tix will escalate until there is no end (you saw my model for how much you really pay for a movie). I am someone who WON’T pay because i am smarter than the average bear, boo boo, and I shop around or simply do without. You, like most people, question nothing. You just accept it no matter how wrong it is. You must have a nice bit of disposable income. I am laid off, right before christmas. But i paid my bills and rent for the year first. Now all i gotta do is eat. I am debt free because that’s where my priorities are. I have a big shelf of movies and I have the local library and there are plenty of other ways to watch movies if i really want (and to see what i think about movies that have been made lately and are going to be, reread my post). Yes, the reality is simple. there are more ways to skin a cat. so go sell crazy someplace else, I’m all stocked up here.
alot of good points on here sypher and aknot, I dont know where I stand here really bc allthough I am a avid movie renter I do go to redbox whenever possible but I do not mind going to blockbuster and paying 3$ more for the same movie if redbox dosent have it. I think 1$ for movies is far to cheap great for us but I can totally c why WB is complaing, I think redbox needs to up there price to 3.50$ per movie and I stll would not mind at all. They need to make there money back so they can make awsome movies again like the ones we are renting. I still stand on my previous argument that movies should be availabe for rent or say streaming like off movies on demand the same day as theatricle relase for the same price as the movie theater. more poeple like my self have great hometheater set ups and its just the convenince factor and comfort factor of course.
@realist
And if everyone was as “smart” as you, how do you suppose ANY movies would get made? Finance them with donated jelly beans and fairy dust?
Vic
@vic
movies dont need to have 100-200-300million$ budgets, do they? case in point: District 9, 30million$. And many others. so ticket sales should be priced by the movie, not uniform across the board. since they won’t do that, then i won’t go. I mentioned in all my posts, home viewing is the way to go. if people stop running out to see movies in the first weekend, and show some solidarity against the film studios for raping us, then they will be forced to change. but there is far too much “hollywood worship” and devotion to studios and stars who don’t give a crap about the fans yet they follow blindly and open their wallets like a cheap lady of the night. well, at least you get screwed either way!
@ realist
After reading your first response, I honestly had some questions about your intelligence (or at the very least, your common sense), because it seemed like the very simple, very easy point I was trying to make went straight over your head. Your rant about my disposable income and my movie viewing habits only made it worse. I don’t know where you got your deductive reasoning skills, but I think you should ask for your money back.
But, you somewhat redeemed yourself in your latest response to Vic by practically making my point for me. Price is set by what the market will bear. When sales decline, or as you so eloquently put it “…if people stop running out to see movies in the first weekend, and show some solidarity against the film studios for raping us, then they will be forced to change”, then the price will adjust to what the market has said it is willing to pay. Starbucks is currently battling it out with McDonald’s over the price of a cup of Joe, because the market is saying that it no longer cares for paying 6 bucks for a cup of coffee. The sales prove it. Starbucks is having to adjust to the market. Obviously you have a gut understanding of what I was trying to say, even if you don’t have the cognitive ability to realize it.
And by the way, name calling? I mean seriously, it doesn’t offend me, but is that the best you got?
Never mind, realist. I just re-read the beginning of your last post, and it is clear that you have absolutely ZERO understanding of simple economics. What are you, some kind of commie? (that’s just a joke)
It seems completely stupid to me. All this means is that Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, or any other local rental store now gets that business instead of netflix. Its only for WB movies so if you really want to see it right away just go rent it somewhere else. Its what Ill end up doing.
no, mcdonalds and starbucks are NOT battling it out because people are sick of paying 4$ for a coffee. mcdonalds is taking massive hits due to the anti-fast food anger of easily led americans and know that starbucks is doing what the film industry, i.e. hollywood video and blockbuster and any film made, are doing to america. wal-mart is also doing this, “the coffee-thing” because this is a competitors market for the competitor’s dollar, and like Tony Soprano says in season 6, “we got more than we need fighting for the ‘entertainment dollar’ what with dvd and other fields” or something to that effect. economics? you havent read any of my posts, have you? i am one of perhaps just a few americans out of a zombified 300 million living off of almost nothing a month because i had the foresight years back on how to manage money and what is right and wrong being charged. redeem myself? no, please don’t say that i agree with you. i don’t. not one bit. nor “Vic”‘s hollywood rub. there are only two ways to fight the studios: boycott and piracy. Piracy is a very loose term though. its anyone not willing to pay for something they are getting raped for. its not paying. its whatever the “law” says. but how bout htis for law? no parking in the red zone. loading and unloading of passengers is in the white zone only. Watch airplane. then you’ll get “America” and when you get “america”, you’ll get “economics and the film industry” and then you’ll wake up screaming when you realize “the stewardess is flying the plane”
@realist
Even a $3 million movie needs people to pay to see it in order to make its money back.
Vic
@realist
Also, an analogy to your piracy argument would be patent violation. Think a drug company is charging too much for a drug that it spent 5 years and a billion dollars to develop? Just go find the patent, figure out how to fabricate the drug and sell it.
You’re just fighting high drug prices, right?
Vic
@ realist
Yeah, you’ve lost me now. You don’t have the slightest idea what your talking about. Maybe you could start by forming a coherent sentence. On second thought, don’t bother. I’ve wasted my last sentence on your stupidity.
@crom and vic
all you are expecting out of this joust is for me to to asciesce to you and hollywood. for years i have watched movies without going to the theater. i have not lost my shirt over it. i will not bow and bend over to their manipulation. i dont pay top dollar for crap. i do not go to the theater yet i see every movie you see. call me stupid? fine. i still got a dollar in my pocket. i still have most of my free time to myself. i still know when someone is pissing down my back (can i say that, vic? are we live) and calling it rain. i dont pay 4$ for coffee at starbucks or 1$ at Mickey D’s. I don’t pay 14$ at the theater. I don’t pay $23 for a new movie nor 4$ for a rental, and i still have seen everything you have seen. how much do you make, Crom and Vic for what you do? you know what i’m making a month? oh man, if you knew you’d cry for me, argentina. i could care less what either of you say. i am smart, i am paying much less for everything you shell out of your wallet for studios and “stars” who don’t care about you, they just want your cash/credit. there are so many ways in this country to get what you want without meeting mr. ben(jamin) dover. on a side note, vic. you do fight like a gent. and cram cram, i’ll drink to the queen and you can drink to…whomever
@realist
I’m not defending Hollywood per se, I’m defending the creators of content who deserve to be compensated for their creation, that’s all.
@crom
Back off on the name calling. I can understand frustration but an argument gets to a point where it’s, well, pointless and the best thing to do is walk away – not end it by calling your opponent names.
Vic