criterionforum.org

Funniest thing I've read all day.

I mean, really, who would want to watch anything other than new releases. Dolt.

This comment is great

Next up: "Radio Shack CEO baffled by Best Buy success."

Equally bewildering to Mr. Keyes is the emphasis on catalog size. Why would anyone want to watch anything other than new releases, he wonders.

...And he wonders what the fascination is with Netflix. They are a enterprise that made most of their revenues on late fees. Mr. Keyes seems pretty frustrated with the competition wonder and a bit jealous I suppose. I'm one of those guys whom rents older films and hard-to-find titles that Netflix (in most cases) have a good record for having in stock. Stupid fucks, I hope they go belly-up.

Business lesson learned today: The best way to defeat your competition is to be confused by them.

I also like the part where he calls it ironic when BB's stock price goes down.

Jun-Dai wrote:Funniest thing I've read all day.

Where on earth did that exec get his MBA?

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:

Jun-Dai wrote:Funniest thing I've read all day.

Where on earth did that exec get his MBA?

I was wondering the same thing. The first thing they teach you at business school is that you don't run a business based on your personal taste. Fucking idiot!

dx23 wrote:

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:

Jun-Dai wrote:Funniest thing I've read all day.

Where on earth did that exec get his MBA?

I was wondering the same thing. The first thing they teach you at business school is that you don't run a business based on your personal taste. Fucking idiot!

Just read that article. He doesn't have a clue, does he?

The thing is, yes, most of NetFlix's subscribers are of the Hitch-renting variety. However, those subscribers are unlikely to go in for a very high tier system-- they're the one or two titles a month variety. Netflix makes a good deal of its money off the catalog-dipping 3+ at a time users

Agreed regarding the stupidity of the CEO's comments, but I'm also not surprised (see below).
What I really take exception to, though, is the snooty writer's wholesale dismissal of brick-and-mortar stores and anything that "smells a little 20th centuryish." I loathe Wired's whole worldview (not to mention that they present so many hasty and just plain wrong claims and predictions, which they probably think is "edgy") so I won't get into that whole subject.
I have had some very good times in brick-and-mortar video stores that were much "skankier" than Blockbuster (no, not that/ kind), browsing the aisles and talking with the staff. I lived in a fairly big midwestern city for 15 years back in the VHS era where there were a couple dozen little independent places, and some of these had eclectic choices and clerks who really knew their stuff. Every last one of these independents, no exaggeration, was put out of business by Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, whose main draw was mountains of copies of the latest new releases. Some of the chain stores' retail space was devoted to with a bunch of crappy comedies, action flicks, and a few of the big award-winning foreign films, but I think what gave them their edge over the independents was their ability to bring in huge quantities of the mainstream new releases. That's what people wanted, otherwise they would have done a better job supporting the independents that had better selection. So of course this is what the CEO of Blockbuster thinks. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Having a more eclectic selection has been important to Netflix, but it's only one part of the strategy they've used to beat Blockbuster. Many people are giving out-of-the-way stuff a try using Netflix, but I suspect most of them value convenience more. I don't think dedicated cinephiles have a huge influence over the fates of these big video rental corporations.

EDIT: just read DH's post above mine. A good point, but I'm not really sure how it all works out. I've heard from a couple of different people recently who are not at all serious about movies, and they've told me they often keep the same Netflix title for a month at a time, which means they're paying quite a bit for a single rental. I guess Netflix also makes quite a bit of profit from that type of customer.

Apparently the CFO isn't much brighter:

IMDb wrote:Blockbuster plans to focus on in-store sales and rentals and is likely to boost prices to support store refurbishments and increased stock that will cost it some $20 million, Blockbuster Cfo Thomas Casey has told a consumer conference in New York. "It's reasonable and fair to understand that for what costs us more money, we should charge more," he said. As reported by Video Business on its website, Casey indicated that a large percentage of new revenue will come from increasing rental fees for Blu-ray discs. "You have to figure out new ways to be fully in stock on Blu-ray because of the [higher] wholesale price," he said.

Yeah, um, it is also "reasonable and fair" for Netflix to put you out of business because they don't have to raise their prices. #-o

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the manufacturers of Blu-ray players aren't too happy with that news either. I doubt it ends up happening after they feel some industry pressure

I wonder what these guys would have to say about this:

Criterion's Blu-ray editions will generally be priced to match our DVDs. It makes sense to us: High-definition mastering and restoration has been a part of our DVD production standard for years. And for our customers who might be on the fence about whether to buy DVD or Blu-ray, we thought the best thing we could do was take price out of the equation.

Oh, wait. They probably don't even know who Criterion is:

CEO Jim Keyes wrote:I don't care how many movies are available to me. As my personal taste as a customer, I want to watch the new stuff so whether we have 10,000 movies or 200 movies doesn't matter if I don't want to see any of the movies that we have . . . our assortment is heavily weighted toward newer releases and mainstream staple titles.

Well, Criterion aside, the studios are already mad at Warners for pushing the price of Blu-ray down just like they did with DVD.

I'll find the link to where I read that some day...

Matt wrote:Well, Criterion aside, the studios are already mad at Warners for pushing the price of Blu-ray down just like they did with DVD.

I'll find the link to where I read that some day...

I also read that someplace, probably at DVDTalk. Still, WB has been putting out lackluster BDs, without loseless audio and with non-digitalized extras, so the price has matched the content.

Blu-ray Prices Stagnant, And It’s All Your Fault

As for Warner, they've produced some terrible disks, but also some excellent ones.

The main complaint is the lack of lossless audio, which isn't even an issue on most classics. (Do folks really want 192khz/24bit DTSHD-MA 7.1 on Casablanca?)

Now, that's a valid complaint in some cases (made me pass on 'Speed Racer' and 'Interview With The Vampire' (were the 640kbps audio is actually worse than the 1.5 mbps DVD)) but hardly makes them a terrible company.
(By far, the worst are, in my opinion, Fox. It's telling that I own at least 50 Warner titles, and 0 from Fox. They may have lossless audio, but they have silly prices and a total lack of extras)

High-Def extras I'm not usually that interested in (with rare exceptions, deleted scenes should always be of the highest quality possible and 1080p. Same goes for some documentaries) But, Warner has been no better or worse than other companies (except maybe Paramount, which always offers 1080p extras)

At the end of the day; there's maybe 5 - 10 titles were I would criticise the lack of lossless audio, and a number of titles that have used large quantities of DNR (The Cowboys looks terrible) but, considering the equally large number of wonderfully film-like transfers (Bullit comes to mind which, incidentally, includes a 1080p documentary in the extras) I still rate Warner as probably the best company producing disks at the moment.

swo17 wrote:Yeah, um, it is also "reasonable and fair" for Netflix to put you out of business because they don't have to raise their prices. #-o

You spoke too soon, my friend. Netflix is adding a $1 monthly surcharge for Blu-ray access:

Dear Matt,

As you may know, Blu-ray movies are more expensive than standard definition movies. As a result, we're going to start charging $1 a month (plus applicable taxes), in addition to your monthly membership charge, for unlimited access to Blu-ray movies.

The additional charge for unlimited Blu-ray access will be automatically added to your next billing statement on or after November 5th, 2008 and will be referenced in your Membership Terms and Details. If you wish to continue getting Blu-ray movies for $1 a month more, you don't need to do anything. If not, you can remove Blu-ray access anytime by visiting Your Account at the Netflix website.

If you have questions about this change or need any assistance, please call us anytime at 1-888-638-3549.

-The Netflix Team

grumble, grumble, grumble

Well, they're still only like 5% evil, compared to Blockbuster's 120%.

At least psufootball07 should be pleased...

Good move to discourage people from moving to BR NetFlix!

Evilness aside, nobody here is gonna move from Netflix to Blockbuster for long. Their stock of catalog titles, particularly over the last few years, is close to zilch. I don't think they carry a single Eclipse set.

With all but one halfway decent brick & mortar store in my area now deceased, I'm more or less a prisoner of Netflix no matter what nonsense they come up with.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Good move to discourage people from moving to BR NetFlix!

I doubt that there are very many people for whom the $1 per month surcharge from Netflix will be the tipping point that convinces them not to buy a BluRay player.

PillowRock wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Good move to discourage people from moving to BR NetFlix!

I doubt that there are very many people for whom the $1 per month surcharge from Netflix will be the tipping point that convinces them not to buy a BluRay player.

I think a increase in cost IS justified since BD does actually cost them more, as long as that increase is reasonable. $1 a month seems reasonable to me, and I'm paying it.

Not to throw a big hissy fit over a $1/month surcharge, but Criterions also cost more than the average DVD, and OOP titles are worth a lot more than the average DVD, and they don't charge you extra to rent those.

Yes, $1/month is pretty much inconsequential. Then again, so is the current Blu inventory. I wonder how much that surcharge might go up when the market is more saturated with Blu titles.

Well, for comparison sake, Zip in Canada (which has a pretty impressively large catalog including lots of OOP stuff) does not charge a surcharge for BD or HD-DVD (when they had them).

The surcharge is ridiculous. Why not for Criterions or SD titles that are now OOP and might be impossible to replace if stolen/damaged? Why don't Netflix members pay less if they only rent "popular" titles that are cheaper/easier to replace? The fee is completely arbitrary. Actually, it just seems like a subscription price hike in disguise. The theory goes that as BD gets more traction, prices will come down and the fee will disappear but I doubt that will happen.