My thoughts as a film set technician on SOPA & PIPA (against my union's wishes)(darkheartfelt.com)
darkheartfelt.com
My thoughts as a film set technician on SOPA & PIPA (against my union's wishes)
http://www.darkheartfelt.com/blog/2012/1/18/thoughts-from-a-tvfilm-set-technician-on-sopa-and-pipa.html
1 comments
Why is there a six month lag? Is it to create an artificial urgency to watch the movie in the theater or else you don't get to see it for six months?
It's a marketing strategy commonly known in the industry as "windowing." The purpose of windowing a movie is primarily to avoid two-way cannibalization: of box office receipts by DVD purchases, and vice versa.
In this way, studios have been able to monetize the same customer base twice for the same product -- once at the theaters, and once on home video. Say what you will about the morality of the business practice, but there's nothing inherently illegal or unethical about it. Almost all consumer products companies rely on similar strategies for marketing their goods.
As a consumer, I have the freedom to choose not to buy into the scheme. If I'm interested in seeing a movie, I can choose to watch it in theaters and be done with it. I can choose to watch it on Netflix and be done with it. I can choose to buy it on Blu-ray if I absolutely love it, and plan on rewatching it a million times in high-def. I can do any or all of those things.
As an entertainment industry professional, I do grow tired of the windowing system. It's a relic of an increasingly distant era -- one in which instant distribution across multiple channels was not possible, and in which real scarcity existed (and artificial scarcity did not need to be maintained to preserve the illusion of such). That said, I do understand the business rationale behind it.
Ultimately, the free market will determine the fate of the windowing system. And if recent years have given us any indication, it's that cannibalization is happening. The window system is on shaky ground. People are avoiding theaters as ticket prices rise at higher-than-inflation rates, and as home video setups become increasingly capable of providing a cinema-quality experience for less and less money. (And then there's piracy, which is a different issue altogether, but which hasn't actually put much of a dent in the studios' bottom lines to date. IMO, the jury is still out, but the threat is massively overblown).
As for why there's a six-month gap in between the theatrical closure and the home video release, that's almost entirely to create artificial scarcity and reignite interest in the product. With today's technology, there is absolutely no reason why a studio couldn't release a film on home video (or digitally) the day after the movie leaves theaters. (Or even on the same day it hits theaters).
Finally: we should note that theaters and studios are two entirely different entities, and legally, they cannot be owned in the US by the same parent companies. So theater owners have a strong vested interested in the windowing system. It is their lifeblood right now. Studios love double-dipping the same customers, but they could still survive without windowing.
In this way, studios have been able to monetize the same customer base twice for the same product -- once at the theaters, and once on home video. Say what you will about the morality of the business practice, but there's nothing inherently illegal or unethical about it. Almost all consumer products companies rely on similar strategies for marketing their goods.
As a consumer, I have the freedom to choose not to buy into the scheme. If I'm interested in seeing a movie, I can choose to watch it in theaters and be done with it. I can choose to watch it on Netflix and be done with it. I can choose to buy it on Blu-ray if I absolutely love it, and plan on rewatching it a million times in high-def. I can do any or all of those things.
As an entertainment industry professional, I do grow tired of the windowing system. It's a relic of an increasingly distant era -- one in which instant distribution across multiple channels was not possible, and in which real scarcity existed (and artificial scarcity did not need to be maintained to preserve the illusion of such). That said, I do understand the business rationale behind it.
Ultimately, the free market will determine the fate of the windowing system. And if recent years have given us any indication, it's that cannibalization is happening. The window system is on shaky ground. People are avoiding theaters as ticket prices rise at higher-than-inflation rates, and as home video setups become increasingly capable of providing a cinema-quality experience for less and less money. (And then there's piracy, which is a different issue altogether, but which hasn't actually put much of a dent in the studios' bottom lines to date. IMO, the jury is still out, but the threat is massively overblown).
As for why there's a six-month gap in between the theatrical closure and the home video release, that's almost entirely to create artificial scarcity and reignite interest in the product. With today's technology, there is absolutely no reason why a studio couldn't release a film on home video (or digitally) the day after the movie leaves theaters. (Or even on the same day it hits theaters).
Finally: we should note that theaters and studios are two entirely different entities, and legally, they cannot be owned in the US by the same parent companies. So theater owners have a strong vested interested in the windowing system. It is their lifeblood right now. Studios love double-dipping the same customers, but they could still survive without windowing.
The "free market" huh? Yeah right ---> http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call
I think you're misinterpreting me here. Windowed theatrical / home video release strategies are orthogonal to PIPA and SOPA (to which, for the record, I am staunchly opposed). Theater groups and studios would still employ a windowing strategy absent PIPA and SOPA, and vice versa.
And yes, you are entirely free to opt out of the windowing system by not buying the same movie twice. While I agree that the industry employs many deplorable tactics in an attempt to stave off technological change, there are plenty of things the consumer has freedom to decide for himself. Nobody's forcing you to pay for a movie in theaters and then pay again for it on DVD. Nobody's forcing you to buy a DVD, and then buy the "Special Edition" of the same movie 6 months later. Just as nobody's forcing you to buy Gilette's newest razor model, then buy the newer version a year from now. Or to buy the ten different "pre-workout," "post-workout," etc., versions of Gatorade currently on the market. Or to buy the "Limited Edition" Nike sneakers at inflated prices in December, only to find out that the edition becomes unlimited and goes on sale in January.
We can call these practices annoying, and they certainly are. But they're common to all consumer products industries, they're consumer-avoidable, and they're nowhere close to the same ballpark as PIPA and SOPA.
And yes, you are entirely free to opt out of the windowing system by not buying the same movie twice. While I agree that the industry employs many deplorable tactics in an attempt to stave off technological change, there are plenty of things the consumer has freedom to decide for himself. Nobody's forcing you to pay for a movie in theaters and then pay again for it on DVD. Nobody's forcing you to buy a DVD, and then buy the "Special Edition" of the same movie 6 months later. Just as nobody's forcing you to buy Gilette's newest razor model, then buy the newer version a year from now. Or to buy the ten different "pre-workout," "post-workout," etc., versions of Gatorade currently on the market. Or to buy the "Limited Edition" Nike sneakers at inflated prices in December, only to find out that the edition becomes unlimited and goes on sale in January.
We can call these practices annoying, and they certainly are. But they're common to all consumer products industries, they're consumer-avoidable, and they're nowhere close to the same ballpark as PIPA and SOPA.
No reason to change the underlying nature of the internet for an archaic business model called "windowing".
I think it's mostly just because they've always done it that way. It does give a chance for the movies to circulate to the lesser theatres that didn't get it in the first weeks of the run, without them having to compete with the rental and streaming market, but now with digital distribution it's not even like there's a limit on the number of celluloid copies anymore.
When you create an artificial urgency, and you splice it in with children's sugar & cheeseburger intake, you should expect them to evolve to obtain it by any means necessary.