Numbers released by an industry trade group show the home entertainment business is weathering the Great Recession remarkably well, although the troubled economy is prompting more consumers to return to their old habit of renting rather than buying videos.

Full story here (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/general/home-entertainment-holding-well-deg-says-16398).

This story says, “That brings the household penetration of HDTVs in the United States to approximately 44 million, up 13% from the end of last year and representing 38% of all U.S. households.” I thought that number was more like 50% (from another article that I can not find). In any case BD seems to be doing fine with just a 38% potential market.

Good growth!!

Consumer spending on DVD and Blu-ray Disc purchases took the hardest hit, slipping 13.5% in the first half, largely due to a weak first quarter in which sales tumbled 15%. The first-half tally was further bolstered by a 91% gain in Blu-ray Disc sales (to $407 million) and a 21% rise in digital distribution spending (to $968 million, which includes $196 million for electronic sellthrough).

Rental spending, on the other hand, was up an impressive 8.3%, again boosted by a significant (62%) gain in Blu-ray Disc spending but also aided by the proliferation of rental kiosks.

“Despite an extraordinarily challenging marketplace, the home entertainment sector continues to be remarkably stable overall, particularly with the growth of higher-margin businesses like Blu-ray Disc and digital distribution,” said Warner Home Video president Ron Sanders, president of the DEG.

He notes that home entertainment’s net operating profit contribution was down just 2.2% in the first half of 2009, because the studios get a bigger cut from Blu-ray Disc and digital distribution sales than they do from standard DVD.

“The overwhelming satisfaction expressed by consumers with regard to Blu-ray shows great promise to the industry’s economic future and we are also optimistic regarding their appetite toward digital technologies,” Chapek said. “Both formats, converging together and resulting in one cohesive consumer experience, will present an opportunity for the industry to return to growth and eclipse our previous benchmarks.”

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/general/home-entertainment-holding-well-deg-says-16398

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6671437.html?desc=topstory

Video Business has a similar article:

Home entertainment revenue slips 3.9% in first half

PHYSICAL: DEG: Growth in Blu-ray, rental, electronic distribution offset steep DVD drop

By Marcy Magiera and Susanne Ault -- Video Business, 7/16/2009

JULY 16 | PHYSICAL: Total U.S. home entertainment spending for the first half of 2009 slipped just 3.9%, according to DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group, with a still steep decline in DVD sales being largely offset by growth in Blu-ray Disc sales, packaged media rental and electronic distribution.

DEG sized the entire pie at $9.73 billion for the half, including $3.4 billion in DVD and Blu-ray rentals, which were up 8.3%; $968 million in digital sales and rentals, including cable and satellite video-on-demand, up 21%; and $5.4 billion in DVD and Blu-ray sales, off 13.5%.

Blu-ray sales, which were up 91% to $407 million, offset declines in the studios’ core DVD sales business, which at slightly less than $5 billion for the half, was off in the neighborhood of 17%, according to Video Business calculations. DEG did not break out DVD sales in its announcement.

Blu-ray sales, which were up 91% to $407 million

Well with that kind of sales I guess BR is doomed i tell you, DOOMED!!!

What do you think Gladiator, Braveheart and LOTR will do for those BD numbers?

What do you think Gladiator, Braveheart and LOTR will do for those BD numbers?

I was being sarcastic :p

Full story here (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/general/home-entertainment-holding-well-deg-says-16398).

This story says, “That brings the household penetration of HDTVs in the United States to approximately 44 million, up 13% from the end of last year and representing 38% of all U.S. households.” I thought that number was more like 50% (from another article that I can not find). In any case BD seems to be doing fine with just a 38% potential market.There are different estimates depending on the company but last year LRG estimated (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16221300&postcount=27) that the number of U.S. households with an HDTV was 34% and that of those HD households 58% of them watch HD programming from a multi-channel video provider.

What do you think Gladiator, Braveheart and LOTR will do for those BD numbers?Do not know, but I'm in for Gladiator and Braveheart :).

Do not know, but I'm in for Gladiator and Braveheart :).

Yeah I'll pass on LOTR until the EEs are released. btw, I've noticed the Blu-ray shelves at my local BBs, Blockbusters and HMVs are growing larger:cool:

Yeah I'll pass on LOTR until the EEs are released. btw, I've noticed the Blu-ray shelves at my local BBs, Blockbusters and HMVs are growing larger:cool: LOTR is a blind buy for me just for the lossless sound. I'll still keep my DVD box sets though.

BD is not the only thing that is helping the industry!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16812013&postcount=9122

So I'm just curious.. does this mean that digital downloads and online content actually made twice as much money as Blu-ray? ~410 million vs ~1 billion or am I missing something here?

So I'm just curious.. does this mean that digital downloads and online content actually made twice as much money as Blu-ray? ~410 million vs ~1 billion or am I missing something here?

They seem to combine rental and sale for digital vs splited sale and rentals for BD and DVD.

They seem to combine rental and sale for digital vs splited sale and rentals for BD and DVD.

Right.. but I'm just seeing that online distribution, DLs and VOD actually made more money then Blu-ray.

If we look at 5.4 billion in sales for DVD and Blu-ray sales together and then it says $400 million were Blu-ray sales, this means that those $400 mill. are less then 10%..

So if we look at 3.4 billion in rentals for both DVD and Blu-ray.. it's only natural to assume that rentals are most likely to be about 10% too. So around $300 million.

So if we combine the 2 we get for a total of $700 million for Blu-ray with rentals which still seems pretty low compared to the DL,VOD and online distribution.

I guess alternate ways of getting content seem to be generating more money then Blu-ray.

Right.. but I'm just seeing that online distribution, DLs and VOD actually made more money then Blu-ray.

If we look at 5.4 billion in sales for DVD and Blu-ray sales together and then it says $400 million were Blu-ray sales, this means that those $400 mill. are less then 10%..

So if we look at 3.4 billion in rentals for both DVD and Blu-ray.. it's only natural to assume that rentals are most likely to be about 10% too. So around $300 million.

So if we combine the 2 we get for a total of $700 million for Blu-ray with rentals which still seems pretty low compared to the DL,VOD and online distribution.

I guess alternate ways of getting content seem to be generating more money then Blu-ray.

That is technically true, but it is hard to make a 1:1 comparison. Blu-ray has a faster growth rate which makes sense since when all is said and done, it receives the same studio priority as DVD (physical media). That faster growth rate will have Blu-ray surpassing Digital Distribution, probably sometime in 2010. The overall physical media market is currently contracting, with Blu-ray not making up for the decline in DVD (even adding in Digital Distribution does not close that gap). The scenarios I have read say physical media will not see growth until 2012.

Digital distribution should show more consistent growth (from a lower base than physical media). That consistent growth will compel content owners to build a release schedule for digital distribution that mirrors physical media. That will give Digital the opportunity to see high double digit growth rate.

That is technically true, but it is hard to make a 1:1 comparison. Blu-ray has a faster growth rate which makes sense since when all is said and done, it receives the same studio priority as DVD (physical media). That faster growth rate will have Blu-ray surpassing Digital Distribution, probably sometime in 2010. The overall physical media market is currently contracting, with Blu-ray not making up for the decline in DVD (even adding in Digital Distribution does not close that gap). The scenarios I have read say physical media will not see growth until 2012.

Digital distribution should show more consistent growth (from a lower base than physical media). That consistent growth will compel content owners to build a release schedule for digital distribution that mirrors physical media. That will give Digital the opportunity to see high double digit growth rate.

Well I'm not saying it's not the case but from what I can see from online sources it seems that all of the content from Blu-ray seems to be available through alternate sources and in some cases even more content (like Vudu). So are studios really treating Blu-ray the same way as DVD? Or they are just treating it as another format including digital distribution and VOD?

And wasn't there an analysis that by about 2013 digital distribution should actually experience much higher growth and physical media and Blu-ray included will be at it's peak and going down? I'm sure I read it somewhere and I remember it being from a fairly reputable source. I think it was like Forrester Research or Futuresource or something like that but I might be wrong.

That sounds familiar, but I am not going to look it up right now. I know that Netflix expects physical media to peak fairly soon.

I guess alternate ways of getting content seem to be generating more money then Blu-ray.There are many alternate ways to content that makes more money than Blu-ray but how alternate Hi-Def sources makes more money than Blu-ray?

Remember that old antiquated thing called OTA that was supposed to have disappeared years ago? Have you looked into the amount of money that OTA still makes?

That sounds familiar, but I am not going to look it up right now. I know that Netflix expects physical media to peak fairly soon.

What is your definition of "fairly soon"?

Then you asked about DVD length, nothing has changed our view that our shipments and rentals will continue to grow and peak sometime in 2015 to 2018 as best we can tell.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/116612-netflix-inc-q4-2008-earnings-call-transcript

The lower end is 7 years (from the date of this article, 2008). The upper end, another decade from the date of this article (which was from 2008).

Now in 2009....is 6 years "fairly soon"? How about 9 years?

What is your definition of "fairly soon"?


http://seekingalpha.com/article/116612-netflix-inc-q4-2008-earnings-call-transcript

The lower end is 7 years (from the date of this article, 2008). The upper end, another decade from the date of this article (which was from 2008).

Now in 2009....is 6 years "fairly soon"? How about 9 years?

Yes, that is fairly soon for the combined rentals of the current dominant format and the "heir apparent" (combined) to peak. I know if I am a business owner (of any business) and I am projecting my core business to peak in 6-9 years, that feels like it is coming up soon!

Especially in comparison to Digital Distribution. We do not know what comes after Digital Distribution, but I would expect that to continue growing for the next 20 years.


EDIT: Some more info on Physical Media peak from Netflix... I think your numbers may be the latest from Reed Hastings (I know he said in 2008 that DVD would peak in 5 years, but seemed to back-off on that when analysts got jumpy).

While many companies this week were busy announcing layoffs, Netflix indicated a 45% jump in earnings. The company's already successful DVD rental service was buoyed by their recent broadband video partnerships, which allow the carrier to offer streaming services via Xbox 360, Roku, TiVO or BluRay players by both LG and Samsung. In a conference call with analysts, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings stated, not too surprisingly, those who use broadband streaming rent fewer physical disks. That spells trouble ultimately for physical media -- though Hastings says physical disk rentals still won't peak until at least 2013.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-What-Recession-100476

And here is the info from earlier in 2008....


Reed Hastings, chief executive of Netflix Inc, said he expects the company to have 10 million subscribers by next year, but the DVD-by-mail business will peak in as soon as five years.

"We think the by-mail business is very strong but will probably peak in the next five years," said Hastings at the Netflix Investor Day in San Francisco on Wednesday. A slide at the presentation showed the peak in five to 10 years.

"Our key challenge is growing earnings per share and subscribers while funding streaming (online video) which should give us years of subscriber and earnings expansion," he told analysts.

Hastings told investors that the company's online investment in 2008 and 2009 is expected to be "fairly inefficient," but noted the reason for higher spending was to cultivate better partnerships and content.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2843042120080528?rpc=44

Yes, that is fairly soon for the combined rentals of the current dominant format and the "heir apparent" (combined) to peak. I know if I am a business owner (of any business) and I am projecting my core business to peak in 6-9 years, that feels like it is coming up soon!

Especially in comparison to Digital Distribution. We do not know what comes after Digital Distribution, but I would expect that to continue growing for the next 20 years.

DVD has been around for ~13 years right now. In your world, in year 2000 of DVD would have been in the "fairly soon" realm. DVD didn't even outsell VHS until about 2003-2004, right? At least half way into it's lifetime. I find it hard to see how that can be deemed "fairly soon". Your interpretation of the "fairly soon" time span would have totally eclipsed the most profitable years of DVD.

In 9 more years, bluray will have been around for the same.

Under your analysis, damn near a whole generation of technology falls under the "fairly soon" umbrella. I think your "fairly soon" extends too long.

I just think you are stretching the "fairly soon" time frame too far, no doubt to puff up your MO of "any stream to any screen" digital download bullet train.

And here is the info from earlier in 2008....

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2843042120080528?rpc=44

So if my info is more current than yours, it must means it supersedes the old data above, right? Which means you just posted out of date information, since new information has been brought to light since.

Isn't your philosophy to go with the newest, most accurate information available?

Shrug.. You are looking for an argument that does not exist. Just like before when you argued for pages without any supporting data.

Go and check my post. I already stated that the info you had from Reed Hastings was more current. I posted it for some perspective on Netflix's business outlook.

And yes, the time frame we are looking at IS fairly short. If Netflix was not already taking steps for what is next, their stock would be in the gutter (like Blockbusters). Businesses (and Wall Street) are already planning for the decline of physical media. You can count the years on your finger as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that any company that does not have a plan for life beyond physical media looks like a buggy-whip manufacturer.

Those were not near or mid term concerns in 2003-2004.

I should also point out that physical media is going to have a long tail, even after it's peak. It will be generating a lot of revenue for a lot of companies for MANY years, but will no longer be a growth market.

Disclaimer: I’m not going to do the research just to prove a point. The info is out there if you care to dig it up (may be in print form only).

Many years ago when cable reached a fair % of penetration many predicted the demise of OTA. It did not happen. Next came the pizza dish and many predicted the demise OTA and cable. Has not happened.

My prediction: there will be OTA, optical disc, satellite, cable and digital media for many years to come.

My prediction: there will be OTA, optical disc, satellite, cable and digital media for many years to come.

Ya think?

There are many alternate ways to content that makes more money than Blu-ray but how alternate Hi-Def sources makes more money than Blu-ray?

Money is money my friend.. Whether it's High def or not is irrelevant. Do you really think that we would have HD if it wasn't certain it would generate more money?

We are talking about home entertainment here globally. DL/VOD/Online is getting there with hi-def there too, but overall we are talking home entertainment overall cause that's what this article says. Blu-ray is just another home entertainment source. Whether it's HD or not is really irrelevant as to how much money it makes. If it can't make enough money it will stop being relevant (not saying it will happen, just saying how companies look at it). If DL/VOD/Online make more money for them you can bet your behind that they'll invest more money in it regardless that it's not all HD or that it's not the quality of Blu-ray right now.

I was just saying that I was surprised, since I"ve been pumped with false information obviously from many people that Blu-ray is making more money then DL/VOD/Online and how it's not even close, yet we see now that not only it's close, but it's like 2:1 almost in favor of DL/VOD/Online which are in one form or another sources that come through internet.

This actually explains the frenzy or studios and CEs manufacturers why they are embedding all this stuff in their devices and sign content distribution with various online video services.

Obviously they are making very good money.


At least my 2 cents.

My prediction: there will be OTA, optical disc, satellite, cable and digital media for many years to come.

Sure, it might be just like CDs are. People mostly don't buy them and those who do, IMO, do because they don't have computers, or don't know how to use computers or don't have internet. But either way, it will be stuff that's being phased out just like with CDs. And I say Phased out because I know that a lot of retailers are discontinuing CDs alltogether because they don't sell as well as other stuff and occupy a lot of space. I think Walmart or some other huge retailer will stop carrying CDs (have to run out now but I'll try to find an article) it was mentioned not so long ago.

Money is money my friend.. Whether it's High def or not is irrelevant. Do you really think that we would have HD if it wasn't certain it would generate more money?

We are talking about home entertainment here globally. DL/VOD/Online is getting there with hi-def there too, but overall we are talking home entertainment overall cause that's what this article says. Blu-ray is just another home entertainment source. Whether it's HD or not is really irrelevant as to how much money it makes. If it can't make enough money it will stop being relevant (not saying it will happen, just saying how companies look at it). If DL/VOD/Online make more money for them you can bet your behind that they'll invest more money in it regardless that it's not all HD or that it's not the quality of Blu-ray right now.

I was just saying that I was surprised, since I"ve been pumped with false information obviously from many people that Blu-ray is making more money then DL/VOD/Online and how it's not even close, yet we see now that not only it's close, but it's like 2:1 almost in favor of DL/VOD/Online which are in one form or another sources that come through internet.

This actually explains the frenzy or studios and CEs manufacturers why they are embedding all this stuff in their devices and sign content distribution with various online video services.

Obviously they are making very good money.


At least my 2 cents.

AHH...doesn't take long for it to become a Bd vs Dl smack down with some...

AHH...doesn't take long for it to become a Bd vs Dl smack down with some...

What did you expect. It's always the same two who comes hand in hand.

Sure, it might be just like CDs are. People mostly don't buy them and those who do, IMO, do because they don't have computers, or don't know how to use computers or don't have internet. But either way, it will be stuff that's being phased out just like with CDs. And I say Phased out because I know that a lot of retailers are discontinuing CDs alltogether because they don't sell as well as other stuff and occupy a lot of space. I think Walmart or some other huge retailer will stop carrying CDs (have to run out now but I'll try to find an article) it was mentioned not so long ago.

Yes, they only sold 362 million cds last...with an average of 10 to 12 tracks per disc...that's close to 4 billion tracks. How many used cds were resold last year?
How many did digital sell...1 billion tracks. How many were resold? 0
Close to phased out? Right!

The fact is that BDs, like cds, offer a higher quality than digital dls or mp3s

I do buy cds and rip them to an ipod at higher bit rate than mp3s. I prefer this because it is cd quality w/o the bulk and it is portable.
Movies on shiny discs are no problem because I don't cart my 60" tv around to watch them. Maybe when they make me a 60" foldable oled screen I can fit in my pocket, then I'll want a 100 movies in my pocket, until then not...

Yes, they only sold 362 million cds last...with an average of 10 to 12 tracks per disc...that's close to 4 billion tracks. How many used cds were resold last year?
How many did digital sell...1 billion tracks. How many were resold? 0
Close to phased out? Right!

The fact is that BDs, like cds, offer a higher quality than digital dls or mp3s
I do buy cds and rip them to an ipod at higher bit rate than mp3s. I prefer this because it is cd quality w/o the bulk and it is portable.
Movies on shiny discs are no problem because I don't cart my 60" tv around to watch them. Maybe when they make me a 60" foldable oled screen I can fit in my pocket, then I'll want a 100 movies in my pocket, until then not...

You couldn't be more right, the only problem is most people could care less about that aspect of it!

You couldn't be more right, the only problem is most people could care less about that aspect of it!
If we were in the vhs or dvd section discussing media I guess you would be right. Being we are in the high def media section, I imagine most here would care about quality.

I was just saying that I was surprised, since I"ve been pumped with false information obviously from many people that Blu-ray is making more money then DL/VOD/Online and how it's not even close, yet we see now that not only it's close, but it's like 2:1 almost in favor of DL/VOD/Online which are in one form or another sources that come through internet. As usual, you are making faulty comparisons.

VOD doesn't even have to come through the internet. Anyone with a digital cable box can buy a VOD without even having an internet connection. It has nothing to do with internet delivery - it is delivered through coax.

And VOD likely made up the lions share of the $968M, since we know actual "electronic sellthrough", or digital movies that were permanently bought, only totaled $196M, which is actually 2x less than purchased bluray discs. Go figure.

Do you know how many people have digital cable boxes? Comcast alone I believe has over 40 million subscribers. And they are largely based on the east coast. If you add up all of the cable subscribers from TW, Cox, Comcast, etc. that have VOD ready cable boxes, it would be in the high ten's of millions. That's a lot more cable boxes than bluray players - they also come free (for the most part) with the service subscription. Kind of a poor comparison to compare a service that offers a free box to one that has to be bought.

Thus, if you divide how much money VOD made by the number of VOD capable boxes (that were free) it would likely be paltry compared to the number you would get dividing the number of bluray players versus bluray discs bought/rented. There is a much larger pool of people that can buy VOD than there is bluray.

This is all moot anyway. You obviously don't care about making accurate comparisons, right? It makes it much easier for you to clump everything together and say it is selling more than bluray. How about we just lump ALL media sales besides bluray together and then compare it to bluray and make fun of how little bluray is selling compared to all other media combined. That's fair, right?:rolleyes:

If we were in the vhs or dvd section discussing media I guess you would be right. Being we are in the high def media section, I imagine most here would care about quality.

Speaking of high def, anyone notice how the article didn't separate how much of those "digitally distributed" films were in HD.

They just lumped them all together. Wonder why?

For those that actually care about making valid comparisons (as opposed to biased ones), the data we would need would really be:

-S DVD sales versus SD digital sales
-S DVD rentals versus SD digital rentals
-bluray sales versus HD digital sales
-bluray rentals versus HD digital rentals

But some here like to compare ALL digital sales (be it SD or HD, rental or purchase) versus just bluray alone, meanwhile leaving S DVD out of the equation.

People with 27" SDTVs can buy a VOD through their cable box. It has absolutely nothing to do with HD. So how can it possibly be valid (or intellectually honest) to compare those dollars to bluray dollars, when they are coming from two different market segments?

If we were in the vhs or dvd section discussing media I guess you would be right. Being we are in the high def media section, I imagine most here would care about quality.

We here at AVS don't make up the part of most so I am right when I say that Quality is not high on the priority list for all those others.

Yes this is the HIGH DEF MEDIA SECTION but if you think just the people that come here are the ones that dictate what an industry does or doesn't do, you are sadly mistaken.

Many formats have fallen by the wayside even though many here including myself have embraced them in one form or another.

The average person will always be the ones that decide the fate of any particular product both in it's long and short term planning and unfortunately most of them will always just settle for good enough!

Has been and always will be that way!

We here at AVS don't make up the part of most so I am right when I say that Quality is not high on the priority list for all those others.

Yes this is the HIGH DEF MEDIA SECTION but if you think just the people that come here are the ones that dictate what an industry does or doesn't do, you are sadly mistaken.

Many formats have fallen by the wayside even though many here including myself have embraced them in one form or another.

The average person will always be the ones that decide the fate of any particular product both in it's long and short term planning and unfortunately most of them will always just settle for good enough!

Has been and always will be that way!
We do know for a fact that people appreciate quality otherwise BD or cds sales would not exist. We also know that BD sales are increasing so we can surmise that more are coming to appreciate the quality and features of the product.
You are right in that most will settle for good enough, however, many premium products exist alongside run of the mill products.

You couldn't be more right, the only problem is most people could care less about that aspect of it!

Right.. that's why MP3 and iTunes and iPods and MP3 players have become standard for music.

As usual, you are making faulty comparisons.

VOD doesn't even have to come through the internet. Anyone with a digital cable box can buy a VOD without even having an internet connection. It has nothing to do with internet delivery - it is delivered through coax.

Of course it doesn't have to come through internet. It didn't start that way, but now and what they are actually counting is internet VOD that's why they are putting it together with Downloads and in any case most providers these days server VOD over internet because it's better and more convenient way for them to do so. I'm sure you'll keep this comparison and again prove you are right when you are not on a couple of pages here but I'll quote anyways:

Consumer spending on DVD and Blu-ray Disc purchases took the hardest hit, slipping 13.5% in the first half, largely due to a weak first quarter in which sales tumbled 15%. The first-half tally was further bolstered by a 91% gain in Blu-ray Disc sales (to $407 million) and a 21% rise in digital distribution spending (to $968 million, which includes $196 million for electronic sellthrough).

What they are pointing out is that digital distribution is making more money then Blu-ray as a platform in Home Entertainment dept.

VOD systems either stream content through a set-top box, allowing viewing in real time, or download it to a device such as a computer, digital video recorder, personal video recorder or portable media player for viewing at any time. The majority of cable- and telco-based television providers offer both VOD streaming, such as pay-per-view, whereby a user buys or selects a movie or television program and it begins to play on the television set almost instantaneously, or downloading...



Makes you wonder what year you live in.. most VOD providers are internet based today.

Tell me how many of the VOD sources listed below are not internet based services which is what I'm sure they include in this article as generating money (taken from Wikipedia) and I bolded I know for sure are using internet most cable providers do the same these days as well (even though I'm pretty sure these were not included anyways because they include on-demand with their subscriptions to cable packages which I'm pretty sure is not included when noted in this article because there's no tangible way of showing/separating the revenue from just using their internal VOD which is free:


* Aplomb Technology™ (India)
* ABC iView (Australia)
* Apple TV (Worldwide)[4]
* 4oD
* Amazon.com
* Apple iTunes Store
* Astro On Demand
* BBC iPlayer
* Bright House Networks
* Charter Communications
* CinemaNow
* Cogeco
* Comcast
* Cox Communications - Internet based (to my knowledge that I've used so far through their VOD system)
* Crackle
* DirecTV
* Disney Family Movies[6]
* Fancast
* Flimmit[7]
* Google Video
* Hulu
* ITV Catch Up
* Joost
* Midcontinent Communications
* MovieBeam
* Movielink
* The Movie Network
* Netflix
* PlayStation Network
* Play4film.com
* Rajshri Media
* ReelTime.com
* Rogers
* Shaw Communications
* Skjárinn
* Sky Anytime
* Streaming Faith
* TFCnow ABS-CBN
* Time Warner Cable
* TVNZ ondemand
* TV Nova[8]
* Universal VOD
* Verizon FiOS
* Virgin Media TV Choice On demand, Catch up tv On demand, Music on Demand, Movies On Demand
* Vodafone Videothek[9]
* Vongo
* Vudu
* YouTube
* ZDF[10]
* ZML
* BIGTV
* YouPorn
* Megavideo

Speaking of high def, anyone notice how the article didn't separate how much of those "digitally distributed" films were in HD.

They just lumped them all together. Wonder why?

Because it's all HOME ENTERTAINMENT.. HD is not the only home entertainment source and with the fact that only 38% of households even use HDTVs, the majority of entertainment is still SD.

As I noted, money is money and if HD is not making as much money as SD (such as with Blu-ray), then there's a problem and that's why we see all these same Blu-ray companies and providers also serving and more content through internet based delivery. That's about it.

Nothing too complex about it.

Because it's all HOME ENTERTAINMENT.. HD is not the only home entertainment source and with the fact that only 38% of households even use HDTVs, the majority of entertainment is still SD.

As I noted, money is money and if HD is not making as much money as SD (such as with Blu-ray), then there's a problem and that's why we see all these same Blu-ray companies and providers also serving and more content through internet based delivery. That's about it.

Nothing too complex about it.

You ever think HD doesn't make as much BECAUSE it is in fewer homes? Not too hard of a premise to understand, is it?

It's idiotic to think that Hollywood would abandon HD before it is even in a majority of homes. It is a growth product. It is one of the only growth products right now. They will continue to support it because it is growing and has not plateaued. They are not going to snuff it out or revert backwards before it gets a chance to spread its wings. Only an idiot would do that.

It is still intellectually dishonest to compare ALL digitally viewed home entertainment against just one HD format: bluray.

Once again, a proper comparison would be:
-S DVD sales versus SD digital sales
-S DVD rentals versus SD digital rentals
-bluray sales versus HD digital sales
-bluray rentals versus HD digital rentals

But you have no interest in being intellectually honest. You seem to get fixated on "money is money". Well guess what, just because "money is money" doesn't mean PROPER comparisons can't be made. The only reason you want to continue along this methodology is to stack the deck against bluray and run your mouth about it being a "horrible format (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16650768&postcount=55)" and imply that it is somehow failing. It is obvious...it's what you do each and every time one of these articles comes out.

Because it's all HOME ENTERTAINMENT.. HD is not the only home entertainment source and with the fact that only 38% of households even use HDTVs, the majority of entertainment is still SD.

As I noted, money is money and if HD is not making as much money as SD (such as with Blu-ray), then there's a problem and that's why we see all these same Blu-ray companies and providers also serving and more content through internet based delivery. That's about it.

Nothing too complex about it.
There was a time when dvd did not make as much money as vhs.
I do remember a time when my friends and relatives told me although dvd was "neat", but it would never catch on because vhs was good enough/you had to buy an expensive player/ there was little selection/ there were tons of movies on broadcast network, blah, blah, blah. Would you have cited it as a failure in its early years also?
What you categorize as a problem is merely one point along the growth curve.
Products with enhanced features are enticements to get people to purchase. Anyone willing to drop 300 bucks on a player is not only going to use it just for NF otherwise they could have done the deal w/ a roku for $100.
None of the combo players, which i'm sure received financial backing form NF, produce BD content.
Is it any different than Toyota putting Sirius radio into their cars? After all, they already have am/fm/cd radio systems. I'm also sure Sirius does it to enhance their subscriber base and their view by potential investors. Toyota loves cash.
If HD content is not making as much money as sd, so what! Ben & Jerrys has not been discontinued because Hood ice cream outsells it. Get real.

What they are pointing out is that digital distribution is making more money then Blu-ray as a platform in Home Entertainment dept.

No, that's what YOU are trying to point out. So, just like that, apples to apples right? You are ridiculous. Incapable of rationally and intellectually observing what these numbers really show.

Get back to me when you can compare like - to - like. SD to SD. HD to HD. Rental to rental. Purchase to purchase.

We do not have the information for how much VOD is in HD, but I can bet it is about 10%, just like bluray is about 10%. Yet bluray at 10% makes $400M on discs SOLD. HD digital probably makes about $20M (i.e. 10% of the $196M in electronic sell through).

Last I checked $400M >>>>$20M. But don't let a rational, thought out and plausible example slow you down.

Both HD via bluray and HD via digital are growth categories. It is intellectually dishonest to lump all digital media sales against just bluray. It would be like me combining DVD and bluray sales against just HD digital sales. Which one do you think makes more???:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder what year you live in.. most VOD providers are internet based today. And why don't they state where most of that VOD money comes from? I bet the large majority comes from cable/satellite STB's which, which may or may not utilize an internet connection. No word on how many of these boxes are actually even connected to HDTVs either.

But you go ahead and keep comparing EVERY digital file "purchased" against one HD source. It is a joke of a comparison.

Tell me how many of the VOD sources listed below are not internet based services which is what I'm sure they include in this article as generating money (taken from Wikipedia) and I bolded I know for sure are using internet most cable providers do the same these days as well (even though I'm pretty sure these were not included anyways because they include on-demand with their subscriptions to cable packages which I'm pretty sure is not included when noted in this article because there's no tangible way of showing/separating the revenue from just using their internal VOD which is free: I guess you got me there. YouPorn is definitely internet based:rolleyes:.

You let me know when you can find that the majority of Comcast users get their VOD delivered via the internet as opposed to through their coax cable on their 27" inch SDTV. You just went on a whole tirade about how SD still makes more money than HD, and then think that all of these users are using high speed internet connections to get VOD? As opposed to through their coax cable? It doesn't add up.

If they are still watching SD, that means they have NOT adopted new technology at the same rate of some others. So why would then then have an internet (high speed) connected device next to an antiquated SD set. It doesn't fit the pattern. But I am sure none of this will stop you from making invalid comparisons.

We do know for a fact that people appreciate quality otherwise BD or cds sales would not exist. We also know that BD sales are increasing so we can surmise that more are coming to appreciate the quality and features of the product.
You are right in that most will settle for good enough, however, many premium products exist alongside run of the mill products.

Well CD's sales are down and people are moving to sub-standard formats instead. The 2 formats ( SACD & DVD-A ) that were to improve the sound of CD's and replace it are pretty much dead. So much for quality!

BD is trying to do what those other formats couldn't, only for DVD instead of CD. The jury is still out whether it will ever accomplish that but I would buy as many as you can because you can never know what might happen or how the industry can turn on a dime and not always for the better as we are witnessing above.

Money is king even at the expense of quality I'm sorry to say!

Well CD's sales are down and people are moving to sub-standard formats instead. The 2 formats ( SACD & DVD-A ) that were to improve the sound of CD's and replace it are pretty much dead. So much for quality!

BD is trying to do what those other formats couldn't, only for DVD instead of CD. The jury is still out whether it will ever accomplish that but I would buy as many as you can because you can never know what might happen or how the industry can turn on a dime and not always for the better as we are witnessing above.

Money is king even at the expense of quality I'm sorry to say!

CDs are down but no need to sell your cd player because they are not out by a long shot. That is unless you consider 362 million shiny discs sold as being phased out. LOL.
The nice thing is, all the cds/dvds and bds i've ever purchased still play. Were talking nearly 21 years ago for the first cd in my collection and 10 years for the first dvd. All w/ normal care.
I wonder how many digital files will still exist in 10 years w/o backup.:D

The HD content industry seems to be moving along quite well with new movies and catalogs being released. Hardly a dying format. Glad to say!

Almost doubling in reported sales from the DEG numbers (Nielsen/Videoscan via HMM has it even slightly better) is still a pretty good achievement in the current economic conditions, no matter if its below somebody's shifting expectations. ;)

Most consumer goods and services providers would die for just keeping even in retail sales from year to year. Blu-ray's growth has undoubtedly been tempered a bit by the economic climate, which by itself should makes it gains a bit more impressive.


http://i29.tinypic.com/33wxr9k.jpg
http://i25.tinypic.com/eg5z42.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/25asuap.jpg

Obviously they are making very good money.No argument there but I just checked and this is an HD Media forum, it says “HDTV Software Media Discussion” in the upper left of the screen. There are other forums for Streaming, Satellite, Cable, OTA, DVD, etc.

No, that's what YOU are trying to point out. So, just like that, apples to apples right? You are ridiculous. Incapable of rationally and intellectually observing what these numbers really show.

No I think you are irrational and incapable of saying when you are not right..

Here let me quote it again for you since you obviously keep missing things that don't go in sync with your theories:

FROM THE ARTICLE and what THEY SAY:


Consumer spending on DVD and Blu-ray Disc purchases took the hardest hit, slipping 13.5% in the first half, largely due to a weak first quarter in which sales tumbled 15%. The first-half tally was further bolstered by a 91% gain in Blu-ray Disc sales (to $407 million) and a 21% rise in digital distribution spending (to $968 million, which includes $196 million for electronic sellthrough).


And YOU are the one who wants to separate money revenue by SD vs SD, HD vs HD etc.. to business this is completely irrelevant.. Online distribution is one way of delivering content.. whether it's HD or not it's completely irrelevant. It generates money, it will grow and and it will improve (and catch up to Blu-ray) so it can get even more people to use it. Blu-ray is new kid on the block so is digital distribution. Whether it's HD and what resolution it uses to present content is irrelevant. It all falls under one industry. And the point here is that digital distribution is obviously preferred by more people as it generates more money and when we put everything in context with actual pricing of content which is still lower through digital distribution channels it is only common sense to conclude that more people consume content that way than through Blu-ray.

There's a reason why major cable providers are shifting online too. Comcast , Time Warner and assorted partners are throwing a big push behind the upcoming On Demand Online that will supposedly offer content in HD as well. 17 cable channels have joined like: A&E, AMC, BBC America, DIY Network, Fine Living Network, Food Network, Hallmark, HGTV, History, IFC, MGM Impact, Sundance Channel, WE tv, E!, The Style Network, G4 and FEARnet

Variety also did a piece on Sony and rise of digital distribution and going mainstream: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006112.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

They quote same stats and the things I pointed out in regards to Blu-ray, revenues and content.

And I already did the math so I did compare purchases AND rentals. So it is apples to apples and digital distribution makes more money. That's the only thing I pointed out at what they said.

No argument there but I just checked and this is an HD Media forum, it says “HDTV Software Media Discussion” in the upper left of the screen. There are other forums for Streaming, Satellite, Cable, OTA, DVD, etc.

Well I didn't write nor post the article. I just merely noticed something that relates in comparison to Blu-ray.

Here let me quote it again for you since you obviously keep missing things that don't go in sync with your theories:

FROM THE ARTICLE and what THEY SAY:
Consumer spending on DVD and Blu-ray Disc purchases took the hardest hit, slipping 13.5% in the first half, largely due to a weak first quarter in which sales tumbled 15%. The first-half tally was further bolstered by a 91% gain in Blu-ray Disc sales (to $407 million) and a 21% rise in digital distribution spending (to $968 million, which includes $196 million for electronic sellthrough).

Yup. No one knows how much of that "digital distribution" was HD.

Therefore we can't directly compare it to bluray, WHICH IS HD.

And YOU are the one who wants to separate money revenue by SD vs SD, HD vs HD etc.. to business this is completely irrelevant.. Online distribution is one way of delivering content.. whether it's HD or not it's completely irrelevant. It generates money, it will grow and and it will improve (and catch up to Blu-ray) so it can get even more people to use it. Blu-ray is new kid on the block so is digital distribution. Whether it's HD and what resolution it uses to present content is irrelevant. It all falls under one industry. And the point here is that digital distribution is obviously preferred by more people as it generates more money and when we put everything in context with actual pricing of content which is still lower through digital distribution channels it is only common sense to conclude that more people consume content that way than through Blu-ray.

It's not irrelevant, because of the forum you are in:

HDTV Software Media Discussion

The fact is probably 90% of those digital delivered files were SD. Not HD. Bluray is HD. This is a HD section of this forum.

You are not explicitly citing HD sales when quoting the $968M number. Those include SD sales. Which should not be compared to HD sales. Same general industry....but two different sectors.

Yup. No one knows how much of that "digital distribution" was HD.

The fact is probably 90% of those digital delivered files were SD. Not HD.

ROFL! :cool:

And YOU are the one who wants to separate money revenue by SD vs SD, HD vs HD etc.. to business this is completely irrelevant..Online distribution is one way of delivering content.. whether it's HD or not it's completely irrelevant. An argument which completely falls apart by the fact that Blu-ray and DVD are separated out. By your rationale, we shouldn't be separating out anything. Odd how you're not even making that argument, let alone defending it so vociferously.

Apples to apples is either disc-based to DL, or HD to SD. Arguing that it only applies to one but not the other and then claiming irrelevancy (three times!) is talking out both sides of the mouth.

An argument which completely falls apart by the fact that Blu-ray and DVD are separated out. By your rationale, we shouldn't be separating out anything. Odd how you're not even making that argument, let alone defending it so vociferously.

Apples to apples is either disc-based to DL, or HD to SD. Arguing that it only applies to one but not the other and then claiming irrelevancy (three times!) is talking out both sides of the mouth.

You want to focus on physical media dropping 13.5% and Digital Distribution increasing 21%? That is the only comparison that can be directly made since (as you point out), HD and SD are not broken out for Digital Distribution.


I guess any comparisons of physical media and Digital Distribution should go ahead and assume the 13.5% decrease for physical media versus the 21% gain for Digital Distribution.

Have fun with that conversation....

ROFL! :cool:

So are you suggesting the majority of VOD downloaded/purchased is in HD?

I will ROFL! right back at you if you think that is the case.

It is logical to assume that digital downloading mirrors optical in SD to HD ratio. bluray averages out around 10%. No reason why digital downloads would vary much from that scenario.

I will also point out that whether physical media or Digital Distribution, the growth for HD should outpace the growth of SD. In the case of physical media, SD is actually seeing significant negative growth... so much that the HD delivery (Blu-ray) cannot make up the gap and show overall positive physical media growth.

An argument which completely falls apart by the fact that Blu-ray and DVD are separated out. By your rationale, we shouldn't be separating out anything. Odd how you're not even making that argument, let alone defending it so vociferously.

Apples to apples is either disc-based to DL, or HD to SD. Arguing that it only applies to one but not the other and then claiming irrelevancy (three times!) is talking out both sides of the mouth.

Might as well include video games and Yahtzee!. After all, they are all "home entertainment", right?

So are you suggesting the majority of VOD downloaded/purchased is in HD?

I will ROFL! right back at you if you think that is the case.

No... I am ROFL at you stating "no one knows" and "the fact is" in the same post (both comments referring to the percentage of Digital Distribution that is HD).

No... I am ROFL at you stating "no one knows" and "the fact is" in the same post (both comments referring to the percentage of Digital Distribution that is HD).

Sorry. replace "fact is" with "educated guess". Better?

Sorry. replace "fact is" with "educated guess". Better?

Of course. It would be fun to discuss the educated guess further, but I am off to a wedding. Maybe later... You have a solid premise (90/10 split for physical media), but there are inherent differences between physical media and Digital Distribution where my guess would be higher (not drastically different, but probably closer to 20%).

CDs are down but no need to sell your cd player because they are not out by a long shot. That is unless you consider 362 million shiny discs sold as being phased out. LOL.
The nice thing is, all the cds/dvds and bds i've ever purchased still play. Were talking nearly 21 years ago for the first cd in my collection and 10 years for the first dvd. All w/ normal care.
I wonder how many digital files will still exist in 10 years w/o backup.:D

The HD content industry seems to be moving along quite well with new movies and catalogs being released. Hardly a dying format. Glad to say!

Your argument is that quality is everything. I have proven it isn't and never will be. Price and convience is what rules the day whether you want to agree with it or not. No one said that those disc and players will stop playing but to think the general public will always think like you is a dream. I know this from experience but I guess you will have to learn that yourself.

In an HD forum, I would imagine that quality is a preference over price and convenience.
In the real world, the three factors operate independently, along with other factors.

As an example, there seems to be a McDs in nearly every town. Yet local (including other chain) restaurants outnumber it by 20 to 1. Every McDs has a $1 menu yet...other items, in the same place, sell for 2x to 4x that amount.

Since we live in the same region, I'll bet your experience is the same in this example.

So it is with hd and sd content, cds and mp3s, etc.

You told me to buy as many discs as I could because you never know what might happen...
No, I don't.

However, with disc based content, that content will continue to be useable for many years as long as I don't abuse it or the player devices.
Other hd content that you don't have in your direct possession, or don't have the ability to move around, is subject to loss. That is true even if you've paid a premium price for it.

Apparently some key information about the DVD business is now highly classified.

The Digital Entertainment Group, an organization that counts all of the major studios and DVD player manufacturers as members, has issued its latest sales report, but what's noteworthy is what's not included in the release.

Though DVD sales were down and rentals were up in the first half of 2009, DEG won't say what that means in real numbers making the percent changes kind of useless.

According to DEG, sales of DVDs and Blu-ray discs plunged 13.5% in the first six months of 2009 compared with a year ago. That more than offset a 8.3% gain in rental revenue driven by budget consciousness during the recession, as well as double digital gains for the still small digital distribution and Blu-ray markets.

However, DEG refused to disclose the current size of the sell-through market or the decline of standard definition DVDs, which still make up the vast majority of home entertainment revenue.

That is a curious shift, because DEG traditionally has disclosed that information and even did so for the first quarter of this year.

Instead, the group only released more favorable information. The 8.3% jump in rental revenue, for instance, signals that consumers are more eager to rent movies for a few bucks than buy them for $15 or $20 during the current economic downturn.

Sales of high-definition Blu-ray DVDs surged 91% in the first half, but their total revenue is still $407 million, a relatively minor figure amount of money in Hollywood. Warner Bros., for instance, spent about that much to produce and market just one movie, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."

Digital distribution is also still growing, although not by as much as Blu-ray. Sales and rentals through outlets such as iTunes, Amazon and Xbox Live grew 21% in the first half to $968 million.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/07/dvd-sales-were-down-and-rentals-were-up-in-the-first-half-of-2009-but-hollywood-doesnt-want-to-say-by-how-muchaccording-to.html

L.A. Times reporter Ben Fritz, in the paper's Company Town blog, yesterday took a sharp little slap at the DEG's mid-year numbers release, pointing out what the release didn't include in a post with the opening "Apparently some key information about the DVD business is now highly classified." As one industry wag commented in an email-- Ouch.

DVD sales still comprise the bulk of home entertainment revenues -- just shy of $5 billion, or more than half of DEG's $9.73 billion total for all formats including DVD and Blu-ray sales and rentals, Internet distribution and cable/satellite VOD. And in recent quarters they've been declining at a rate of more than 15% year-over-year. In round numbers, that means DVD sell-through fell from about $6 billion in the first half of 2008 to about $5 billion in the first half of 2009.

http://www.videobusiness.com/blog/1120000312/post/1940046794.html

err.. thats because some of that is now Blu-ray sales. ;)

Thats because a lot of that 15% decline is actual sales shift to more profitable Blu-ray and the other sources are gaining revenues as well.

But the DEG was clumsy in not breaking it out.

More of the blog post puts in in context.

http://www.videobusiness.com/blog/1120000312/post/1940046794.html

The sting of truth

July 17, 2009 L.A. Times reporter Ben Fritz, in the paper's Company Town blog, yesterday took a sharp little slap at the DEG's mid-year numbers release, pointing out what the release didn't include in a post with the opening "Apparently some key information about the DVD business is now highly classified." As one industry wag commented in an email-- Ouch.

It must have stung, that blog, but it made a valid point about the fact that DEG did refuse to detail the performance of the largest pane of the "home entertainment window" -- DVD sales.

DVD sales still comprise the bulk of home entertainment revenues -- just shy of $5 billion, or more than half of DEG's $9.73 billion total for all formats including DVD and Blu-ray sales and rentals, Internet distribution and cable/satellite VOD. And in recent quarters they've been declining at a rate of more than 15% year-over-year. In round numbers, that means DVD sell-through fell from about $6 billion in the first half of 2008 to about $5 billion in the first half of 2009.

DEG doesn't want to spell that out, of course, out of fear that the media will grab onto that negative story and ignore the larger, positive context DEG and the studios are trying to wrap around the mid-year report -- that the home entertainment window is now multifaceted and that all the facets except DVD sales are growing.

And DEG is right to push the larger context, as are the studios, retailers, and everyone in the industry. But reporters are generally smart, and have pretty good instincts about what's not being said. Better to be straightforward with the facts, then apply the spin.

In the interest of transparency, I should divulge that the DEG's mid-year report also threw a monkey wrench into our own mid-year numbers plan. As we have done every year for almost a decade, VB planned to collect numbers from as many sources as possible, including the major studios, analyze them and come up with our own quarterly summary. However, the major studios decided to release numbers only through the DEG this time around, so we did not have access to the breadth of data we usually draw on. As a result, there are no market share charts or top title listings to go with the mid-year numbers story this week. Look for some updates on our Web site.

http://www.videobusiness.com/blog/1120000312/post/1940046794.html
Considering the booming world economy I am shocked, absolutely shocked by this news.

Considering the booming world economy I am shocked, absolutely shocked by this news.

The world economy means that the DEG should not release sales data that they used to?

Interesting logic.

Over the years I have participated in several forums here at AVS Forums. One area that is now about 1½ years old is the “Video Download Services & Hardware” and it supposed to represent the newest thing in terms of A/V entertainment. Here is my question, why does it receive so little attention from AVS Forum members?

Below is an example, the Dish DTVPal DVR has only been on the market about 6 months, the Sony PVR was discontinued sometime back yet just these two threads probably represents more post and views than the entire “Video Download Services & Hardware” has. Why do you suppose that is?

Thread Post Views
The Official AVS Dish DTVPal DVR Topic! 6,116 553,050
Sony DHG-HDD250/500: Official Thread 18,274 1,224,772

The world economy means that the DEG should not release sales data that they used to?

Interesting logic.

Interesting reply.

When I asked awhile ago why NF would not confirm streaming numbers cited by an article, you posted that companies did not release that type of info because of competition:rolleyes:

I can understand companies/groups not revealing certain information when they are under stress. That applies to info they used to boast about in better times.

This certainly does not affect my purchasing or enjoyment of their product.

Interesting reply.

When I asked awhile ago why NF would not confirm streaming numbers cited by an article, you posted that companies did not release that type of info because of competition:rolleyes:

I can understand companies/groups not revealing certain information when they are under stress. That applies to info they used to boast about in better times.

This certainly does not affect my purchasing or enjoyment of their product.

The story is that they are hiding certain data. They got called on it. This is not about competition. I am certain the DEG has this data, which means all the studio execs have this data.

The story speaks for itself. The drop in physical media sales is obviously a big enough concern where the studios want to minimize the news around it. A couple of journalist found the tactic... amusing. And denial is always amusing. :)

The story is that they are hiding certain data. They got called on it. This is not about competition. I am certain the DEG has this data, which means all the studio execs have this data.

The story speaks for itself. The drop in physical media sales is obviously a big enough concern where the studios want to minimize the news around it. A couple of journalist found the tactic... amusing. And denial is always amusing. :)

That is what I got out of it as well.

The story is that they are hiding certain data. They got called on it. This is not about competition. I am certain the DEG has this data, which means all the studio execs have this data.

The story speaks for itself. The drop in physical media sales is obviously a big enough concern where the studios want to minimize the news around it. A couple of journalist found the tactic... amusing. And denial is always amusing. :)

See, we can agree on something.

See, we can agree on something.

Actually, I think I agree with people on most topics here. There is just a small minority who see success of anything but Blu-ray as threatening. That mindset is absolutely mind-boggling, especially from people who are basically just consumers.

Even the biggest corporate proponents of Blu-ray understand the need to embrace all the emerging markets in order to grow the home media market as DVD declines.

Looks like CE products are in for a fall in 09. The bright spot is Blu-ray which is poised for growth in 09. I still find it somewhat surprising that BD has this kind of growth when one considers the economic climate.

Consumer electronics shipment revenues for 2009 will dip 7.7% to $165 million, the first decline since 2001

One year after emerging as the next-generation DVD format of choice, Blu-ray players are poised for growth in 2009. Unit shipments of Blu-ray players will jump 112% this year, reaching nearly 6 million. Even as prices drop, revenues are expected to top $1 billion, an increase of 48% over 2008.

Story here (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6671932.html)

Looks like CE products are in for a fall in 09. The bright spot is Blu-ray which is poised for growth in 09. I still find it somewhat surprising that BD has this kind of growth when one considers the economic climate.



Story here (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6671932.html)

It is not a surprise at all. The Consumer Electronics area as a whole is doing well in this economic climate. Home Video should do fairly well, as it is still an inexpensive form of entertainment, compared to other entertainment options. The industry is supporting Blu-ray as the successor to DVD, so growth is expected and not surprising. It would be surprising if it was not posting high percentage growth this early in the adoption phase.

The CE industry continues to hold up favorably compared with other industries, CEA said. Despite the worst recession since the Great Depression, CE spending as a percentage of all durable goods is as high as it has been in 50 years. Vehicle sales are down 40 percent since the recession began in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to Autodata, and existing home sales are down 34 percent from their peak in August 2005, according to the National Association of Realtors.

"The CE industry is not impervious to the economic downturn but remains resilient compared to other industries," said CEA president/CEO Gary Shapiro. "Through innovation and global access to consumers and open markets, technology companies will restore economic growth and prosperity. American consumers continue to purchase CE products despite cutting back in many areas, showing that consumer electronics are vital to everyday life in this country."

http://www.twice.com/article/315760-CE_Sales_To_Fall_7_7_In_09_CEA.php

Over the years I have participated in several forums here at AVS Forums. One area that is now about 1½ years old is the “Video Download Services & Hardware” and it supposed to represent the newest thing in terms of A/V entertainment. Here is my question, why does it receive so little attention from AVS Forum members?

Below is an example, the Dish DTVPal DVR has only been on the market about 6 months, the Sony PVR was discontinued sometime back yet just these two threads probably represents more post and views than the entire “Video Download Services & Hardware” has. Why do you suppose that is?

Thread Post Views
The Official AVS Dish DTVPal DVR Topic! 6,116 553,050
Sony DHG-HDD250/500: Official Thread 18,274 1,224,772

Pretty telling huh? I don't think people are as interested in ditching optical discs as many blog sites and people here claim.

I love technology. I definitely fall in the "early adopter" category. I am a Mac guy and know tons of people in the circles that I run in that are Mac enthusiasts. Not a single one of them owns an AppleTV. I think all of them (including myself) are excited about what AppleTV could become, but it seems like Apple is treating the product more as an after thought. And until I can get higher download speeds (I am maxed out at 2.5-3mbps in my area) the whole thing is basically moot since I want HD streaming/downloading. Not SD. I have honestly given Netflix streaming, Xbox downloads, PS3 downloads, a shot and none of them impressed me compared to Blu-Ray (and HD DVD for that matter). Vudu is the only offering that remotely interests me right now, but until I can get more bandwidth and also have more confidence in the likelihood that the company lasting I will sit tight.

The potential is there I think, but I am just not excited about any of the current offerings. And apparently not many other people at AVS are either (or any other HD forum that I visit). The most excited piece of hardware I am looking at now is a Blu-Ray player from Oppo that does not even offer streaming.

Anyway good to see Blu-Ray growing even in this tough economy.

Pretty telling huh? I don't think people are as interested in ditching optical discs as many blog sites and people here claim.I do a fair amount of streaming but it is via a PC to 21" monitor. Streaming is actually old hat for me (we were streaming our programing in the late 90s) and I just do not see what all the hubbub is about. It is nothing more than another way to get to certain content. The quality leaves much to be desired and that is not likely to see significant improvement for sometime. I would never put hours on my UHP watching content from the internet.

I too looked into Vudu but it would about triple my bill for movie watching compared too what I pay for mail rental of BD. Fortunately, I have fairly good OTA and PBS via satellite so between all the sources I have more than I can watch. I have some unwatched BD titles that has been on the shelf for more than a year.

Over the years I have participated in several forums here at AVS Forums. One area that is now about 1½ years old is the “Video Download Services & Hardware” and it supposed to represent the newest thing in terms of A/V entertainment. Here is my question, why does it receive so little attention from AVS Forum members?

Below is an example, the Dish DTVPal DVR has only been on the market about 6 months, the Sony PVR was discontinued sometime back yet just these two threads probably represents more post and views than the entire “Video Download Services & Hardware” has. Why do you suppose that is?

Thread Post Views
The Official AVS Dish DTVPal DVR Topic! 6,116 553,050
Sony DHG-HDD250/500: Official Thread 18,274 1,224,772

Who knows. Do you happen to have the sales numbers for those devices?

Digital Distribution did just under a billion in software revenue in the first half. More than double Blu-ray revenue during the same period.

Thanks for emphatically illustrating that posting rate at AVS does not have a correlation to market interest, adoption and sales.

Who knows. Do you happen to have the sales numbers for those devices?

Digital Distribution did just under a billion in software revenue in the first half. More than double Blu-ray revenue during the same period.

Thanks for emphatically illustrating that posting rate at AVS does not have a correlation to market interest, adoption and sales.

So what HD forum or tech site does have a huge following of streaming enthusiasts? And I am not talking about a dozen or so people. I am talking about hundreds.

And I think it is unfair to compare digital distro as a whole to just Blu-Ray. I believe it would be more correct to either compare digital distro to packaged media as a whole or HD digital distro to Blu-Ray and SD digitial distro to DVD.

Do you happen to have the sales numbers for those devices?No, why should I? They were selected purely at random.

Digital Distribution did just under a billion in software revenue in the first half. More than double Blu-ray revenue during the same period.

Thanks for emphatically illustrating that posting rate at AVS does not have a correlation to market interest, adoption and sales.Pretty pathetic considering the millions and millions of streaming devices in consumers homes (PC’s, Xbox’s, Mac’s, BD players, iPhones, Roku’s, Tivo’s, etc., etc.) vs 11 million BD players. So yes, it appears AVS members mirrors the general public as far as streaming goes.

So what HD forum or tech site does have a huge following of streaming enthusiasts? And I am not talking about a dozen or so people. I am talking about hundreds.

And I think it is unfair to compare digital distro as a whole to just Blu-Ray. I believe it would be more correct to either compare digital distro to packaged media as a whole or HD digital distro to Blu-Ray and SD digitial distro to DVD.

Digital Distribution is a very different beast. Just take a look at the news about it. News releases about it include success when coupled with Netflix (and the 360) or Sony's PS3 network. It is about partnering with Sony on their entire Bravia line, or integration with set top boxes (DVRs), BD players and other television manufacturers. It's strength and growth potential lie in the reality that CE devices of all sorts are integrating services that support Digital Distribution.

It is very much in line with the concept of new media... viral and ubiquitous. I can look at the general categories here at AVS and see that just about ANYTHING video related either has devices supporting Digital Distribution, or will have devices supporting Digital Distribution. And in all cases, the percentage of devices will increase.

And adoption numbers are looking good. Adoption of Netflix streaming over the 360 hit 7 figures in a matter of months. Hulu went from non-existent to the #2 streaming video site in under a year (with I believe 40 million unique visitors).

If someone is trying to assert a lack of interest or usage because of forum activity, then they are only proving one thing... that forum activity has no correlation with usage and adoption. We have plenty of usage and revenue sources to make those arguments.

No, why should I? They were selected purely at random.
Which makes trying to do a comparison of AVS interest versus market success utterly pointless and without thought or merit.

Pretty pathetic considering the millions and millions of streaming devices in consumers homes (PC’s, Xbox’s, Mac’s, BD players, iPhones, Roku’s, Tivo’s, etc., etc.) vs 11 million BD players. So yes, it appears AVS members mirrors the general public as far as streaming goes.

Most of those devices are multi-purpose. We all know the Blu-ray sell through rate looks much worse when just focusing on PS3.

The fact is that Digital Distribution is doing just fine in the market. It is being embraced by studios and CE manufacturers in ever higher numbers. Digital Distribution is strong and growing. Arguments to the contrary are quite amusing simply because they are ridiculously flimsy.

Digital Distribution is a very different beast. Just take a look at the news about it. News releases about it include success when coupled with Netflix (and the 360) or Sony's PS3 network. It is about partnering with Sony on their entire Bravia line, or integration with set top boxes (DVRs), BD players and other television manufacturers. It's strength and growth potential lie in the reality that CE devices of all sorts are integrating services that support Digital Distribution.

It is very much in line with the concept of new media... viral and ubiquitous. I can look at the general categories here at AVS and see that just about ANYTHING video related either has devices supporting Digital Distribution, or will have devices supporting Digital Distribution. And in all cases, the percentage of devices will increase.

And adoption numbers are looking good. Adoption of Netflix streaming over the 360 hit 7 figures in a matter of months. Hulu went from non-existent to the #2 streaming video site in under a year (with I believe 40 million unique visitors).

If someone is trying to assert a lack of interest or usage because of forum activity, then they are only proving one thing... that forum activity has no correlation with usage and adoption. We have plenty of usage and revenue sources to make those arguments.

On integrating digital distro with other devices, (ie BD players, video game consoles, etc) then, well, I agree that this is the best method to get people to use the services. But do you think the primary reason a person is buying a BD player or video game console is to stream movies? I believe it to be a secondary reason at best. And in many cases they are going to stream content from YouTube and Netflix. It is more of a value add.

But I specifically mentioned AppleTV and Vudu. I am just not seeing people embrace these technologies and really get excited about them. Especially AppleTV. The iPod continues to sell very strongly. The iPhone has really taken off. Macbook sales are way up. AppleTV is just not generating the level of interest from Apple fans and enthusiasts as their other product IMHO. And it certainly does not get much attention as Blu-Ray on any of the HD forums that I visit.

I think Vudu has a cult following, but I just don't see the masses really caring. If you offered the masses a $99 BD player or a $99 Vudu player, which do you think they would be more likely to purchase?

On integrating digital distro with other devices, (ie BD players, video game consoles, etc) then, well, I agree that this is the best method to get people to use the services. But do you think the primary reason a person is buying a BD player or video game console is to stream movies? I believe it to be a secondary reason at best. And in many cases they are going to stream content from YouTube and Netflix. It is more of a value add.

But I specifically mentioned AppleTV and Vudu. I am just not seeing people embrace these technologies and really get excited about them. Especially AppleTV. The iPod continues to sell very strongly. The iPhone has really taken off. Macbook sales are way up. AppleTV is just not generating the level of interest from Apple fans and enthusiasts as their other product IMHO. And it certainly does not get much attention as Blu-Ray on any of the HD forums that I visit.

I think Vudu has a cult following, but I just don't see the masses really caring. If you offered the masses a $99 BD player or a $99 Vudu player, which do you think they would be more likely to purchase?

I don't think the typical Apple enthusiast buys much that they cannot show off at the local coffee shop... ;)

People are comfortable with physical media. It is something that they can understand (or misunderstand when it comes to owning versus licensing). I won't argue that the $99 Blu-ray player would not be more attractive. Heck, I have already stated that I think Blu-ray software revenue will catch and pass Digital Distribution revenue (probably in 2010).

What I don't believe is that anything that has been discussed spells doom for either Blu-ray OR Digital Distribution. They are complimentary and will be for a long time.

I do like to read and understand trends and other business information. Maybe because I see them simply as factors that impact the businesses, and not ammo for or against anything (since I believe both BD and DD are doing fine by their own rights), I can digest the information without going nuts or seeing agendas everywhere.

I have to admit at finding people who do see conspiracies as being entertaining. Really... is anything discussed in this forum going to change the market? No. But it is certainly nice if we can speak reality instead of walking on eggshells to appease those wearing tin-foil hats.

So what HD forum or tech site does have a huge following of streaming enthusiasts? And I am not talking about a dozen or so people. I am talking about hundreds.IMO, the poster will not respond for obvious reasons.

And I think it is unfair to compare digital distro as a whole to just Blu-Ray. I believe it would be more correct to either compare digital distro to packaged media as a whole or HD digital distro to Blu-Ray and SD digitial distro to DVD.This has been pointed out to the poster as well. Makes one wonder if the poster knows the difference between HD & SD.

IMO, the poster will not respond for obvious reasons.

The obvious reason being you already demonstrated that forum activity does not correlate to adoption or revenue.

This has been pointed out to the poster as well. Makes one wonder if the poster knows the difference between HD & SD.

The only data we have where we can make a direct comparison is on physical media (as a whole) and Digital Distribution as a whole.

Those numbers show physical media dropping 13.5% and Digital Distribution increasing 21%. I do not believe that helps the discussion in this forum and is unfair to Blu-ray's actual market growth.

Which makes trying to do a comparison of AVS interest versus market success utterly pointless and without thought or merit.OTA, cable, satellite and optical media represents a very large revenue source. It also has a large interest here at AVS.


The fact is that Digital Distribution is doing just fine in the market.Have I said anything to the contrary? It was you that made the ridiculous comparison between the whole of digital distribution and Blu-ray. If HD digital distribution did double the revenue of Blu-ray then there may be some room to brag.

A question for you. Do you really believe that you are going to make a difference in the success or failure of digital distribution by posting here at AVS? HD DVD (another HD optical format) was promoted here at AVS by several MS employees and numerous other supporters. I assume you know the pocket sizes of Microsoft, Intel and Toshiba.

HD DVD failed in the market place with all that backing and support. It may happen to Blu-ray, it could certainly happen to digital distribution, there are no guarantees.

OTA, cable, satellite and optical media represents a very large revenue source. It also has a large interest here at AVS.

??? The point remains. There is no correlation between AVS forum activity and market adoption and success. Any attempt to make that correlation is ludicrous. If you want to have a specific conversation on market share then please bring data... not poorly thought out insinuation.


Have I said anything to the contrary? It was you that made the ridiculous comparison between the whole of digital distribution and Blu-ray. If HD digital distribution did double the revenue of Blu-ray then there may be some room to brag.

A question for you. Do you really believe that you are going to make a difference in the success or failure of digital distribution by posting here at AVS? HD DVD (another HD optical format) was promoted here at AVS by several MS employees and numerous other supporters. I assume you know the pocket sizes of Microsoft, Intel and Toshiba.

HD DVD failed in the market place with all that backing and support. It may happen to Blu-ray, it could certainly happen to digital distribution, there are no guarantees.

You were the one who brought up this entire pointless and merit less comparison of forums. As it turns out, the article that spawned this thread just happened to have revenue numbers for Blu-ray and Digital Distribution (which lines up with the various sub-forums). The point was not to try and compare the revenue between the two, but to show the total lack of correlation between forum activity and market acceptance and revenue. That is still true. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of rudimentary logic.

I do not believe posting here will change the marketplace. I have already stated that today. I just prefer for conversation to be based in reality.

I enjoy gathering, sharing and discussing good information. To me knowledge is a tool to help form opinion. Some here seem to view it as a threat or a weapon.

As it turns out, the article that spawned this thread just happened to have revenue numbers for Blu-ray and Digital Distribution (which lines up with the various sub-forums).

And this is what people here are saying isn't a valid comparaison. The arrticle splitted DVD and BR but they didn't do the same for DC. Unless you can provide the $$$ figure for HD DC in comparaison to BR then we are comparing apples to oranges. DVD and SD DC has no relevance in a High Definition discussion.

The point was not to try and compare the revenue between the two, but to show the total lack of correlation between forum activity and market acceptance and revenue. That is still true. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of rudimentary logic.

I do not believe posting here will change the marketplace. I have already stated that today. I just prefer for conversation to be based in reality.

I enjoy gathering, sharing and discussing good information. To me knowledge is a tool to help form opinion. Some here seem to view it as a threat or a weapon.

Conversation based in reality... You mean cut and paste ad nauseam of out of context snippet to push an agenda.

I'm not against knowledge, quite the contrary. I'm against propaganda.

There is no correlation between AVS forum activity and market adoption and success.Which one of OTA, cable, satellite and optical media success in the market place does not match AVS member interest in OTA, cable, satellite and optical media?

Also I posed a question: There seems to be little interest in digital distribution here at AVS. Why do you suppose that is?


You were the one who brought up this entire pointless and merit less comparison of forums.From your second post in this thread:

Digital distribution should show more consistent growth (from a lower base than physical media). That consistent growth will compel content owners to build a release schedule for digital distribution that mirrors physical media. That will give Digital the opportunity to see high double digit growth rate.

You are the one that starts pushing your streaming agenda in this HD MEDIA forum. I suggest you read some of your anti Blu-ray comments in the “Downloads” forum.

??? The point remains. There is no correlation between AVS forum activity and market adoption and success. Any attempt to make that correlation is ludicrous. If you want to have a specific conversation on market share then please bring data... not poorly thought out insinuation.
I do not believe posting here will change the marketplace. I have already stated that today. I just prefer for conversation to be based in reality.

I enjoy gathering, sharing and discussing good information. To me knowledge is a tool to help form opinion. Some here seem to view it as a threat or a weapon.

I couldn't agree with you more as I pretty much have been saying the same thing. Some here just want to believe what they want to believe and there is nothing anyone can say or do that will change that.

But that is what attracts many to these types of forums because it gives them a place to voice their own opinions and it is up to the reader to sort out all the facts and base their conclusions without including posters personal agendas which can become quite challenging in and of itself.

Actually, I think I agree with people on most topics here. There is just a small minority who see success of anything but Blu-ray as threatening. That mindset is absolutely mind-boggling, especially from people who are basically just consumers.

Even the biggest corporate proponents of Blu-ray understand the need to embrace all the emerging markets in order to grow the home media market as DVD declines.

Personally I don't care if streaming reaches $5 billion like DVD is now. I only care about the quality of my movies and don't have the slightest interest in "good enough". Once Steaming/VOD/DL can instantly provide equal or better video and audio that Blu-ray I will give it another look to replace my rentals at least. Also, just because it may be labeled HD does not = HD to me. I can upscale DVD to 1080p all day, but no matter how you slice it, that's not true HD to me.

Unfortunately far to many proponents of alternate formats are willing to settle for "good enough" and that is what I find absolutely mind boggling.

And this is what people here are saying isn't a valid comparaison. The arrticle splitted DVD and BR but they didn't do the same for DC. Unless you can provide the $$$ figure for HD DC in comparaison to BR then we are comparing apples to oranges. DVD and SD DC has no relevance in a High Definition discussion.

It isn't a valid comparison, except when the poor "forum posts" argument comes into play. In that case we have the HDTV software section (which has basically been deemed as Blu-ray) and the Video Download and Services section which is the closest thing to Digital Distribution on AVS. Thanks for again reinforcing that the entire concept behind trying to link forum activity to marketplace activity is inherently flawed.

Conversation based in reality... You mean cut and paste ad nauseam of out of context snippet to push an agenda.

I'm not against knowledge, quite the contrary. I'm against propaganda.

You are against data. I cut and paste data when it is relevant. People only seem to have an issue with that if the data does not support their world view and they are unwilling or incapable of using data and information to form opinion.

Those numbers show physical media dropping 13.5% and Digital Distribution increasing 21%. I do not believe that helps the discussion in this forum and is unfair to Blu-ray's actual market growth.

One could argue that with physical media dropping 13.5% it still is a 5.5 billion dollar revenue source compared to less than 1 billion for all digital distro media combined. After all money is money as another poster put it.

Personally I don't care if streaming reaches $5 billion like DVD is now. I only care about the quality of my movies and don't have the slightest interest in "good enough". Once Steaming/VOD/DL can instantly provide equal or better video and audio that Blu-ray I will give it another look to replace my rentals at least. Also, just because it may be labeled HD does not = HD to me. I can upscale DVD to 1080p all day, but no matter how you slice it, that's not true HD to me.

Unfortunately far to many proponents of alternate formats are willing to settle for "good enough" and that is what I find absolutely mind boggling.

Wanting the best quality is absolutely fair.

But that is not usually the argument people make. Or they insinuate that not having quality equal to Blu-ray is going to doom Digital Downloads. I don't believe that to be true, and I have not seen anything from any analyst or industry exec that states they believe that.

I also happen to believe that the very nature of Digital Downloads will allow for increases in video (and audio) fidelity that will surpass Blu-ray before the end of the Blu-ray lifecycle. That is simply an opinion, but if you look at the increases in quality in just the last year it is not hard to imagine.

EDIT: I should also note that discussions in the Video Download section discuss quality and rank them appropriately. I don't think I have seen anyone ever say that if you MUST have the best quality then BD is the way to go. It is more a matter of convenience and title availability that makes Digital Distribution the choice in some cases.

Your argument is that quality is everything. I have proven it isn't and never will be. Price and convience is what rules the day whether you want to agree with it or not. No one said that those disc and players will stop playing but to think the general public will always think like you is a dream. I know this from experience but I guess you will have to learn that yourself.


Maybe you are right, but there are a few (about 6 million by the end of the year) that would disagree. :rolleyes:


One year after emerging as the next-generation DVD format of choice, Blu-ray players are poised for growth in 2009. Unit shipments of Blu-ray players will jump 112% this year, reaching nearly 6 million. Even as prices drop, revenues are expected to top $1 billion, an increase of 48% over 2008.
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6671932.html (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6671932.html)

Which one of OTA, cable, satellite and optical media success in the market place does not match AVS member interest in OTA, cable, satellite and optical media?

Also I posed a question: There seems to be little interest in digital distribution here at AVS. Why do you suppose that is?

I don't care. I do know that Digital Distribution is discussed in other forums. I have seen it talked about in the PS3, 360 and Blu-ray player forums, and of course here (which are pretty much all the forums I visit here).


From your second post in this thread:

You are the one that starts pushing your streaming agenda in this HD MEDIA forum. I suggest you read some of your anti Blu-ray comments in the “Downloads” forum.

I was responding to another post that asserted "I guess alternate ways of getting content seem to be generating more money then Blu-ray."

Here is the entire response.

That is technically true, but it is hard to make a 1:1 comparison. Blu-ray has a faster growth rate which makes sense since when all is said and done, it receives the same studio priority as DVD (physical media). That faster growth rate will have Blu-ray surpassing Digital Distribution, probably sometime in 2010. The overall physical media market is currently contracting, with Blu-ray not making up for the decline in DVD (even adding in Digital Distribution does not close that gap). The scenarios I have read say physical media will not see growth until 2012.

Digital distribution should show more consistent growth (from a lower base than physical media). That consistent growth will compel content owners to build a release schedule for digital distribution that mirrors physical media. That will give Digital the opportunity to see high double digit growth rate.

I stand by each and every word. In case you missed it, I clearly declared that I believed Blu-ray would surpass Digital Distribution in 2010, and was countering the idea that Digital Distribution was showing more growth than Blu-ray. Not sure how that is "anti Blu-ray".

Again, the issue seems not to be with any fact that is not basically Blu-ray fanboy support. I have no desire to be a cheer leader. I prefer to know and understand all the market conditions.

It isn't a valid comparison, except when the poor "forum posts" argument comes into play. In that case we have the HDTV software section (which has basically been deemed as Blu-ray) and the Video Download and Services section which is the closest thing to Digital Distribution on AVS. Thanks for again reinforcing that the entire concept behind trying to link forum activity to marketplace activity is inherently flawed.

And here is a prime example of PSound spinning it away.

I ask you why it is valid to consider the revenues of BR alone against all form of DC (HD and SD). Wouldn't be more appropriate to compare SD (DVD + HD (BR) vs all DC?

Can you answer that.

I also happen to believe that the very nature of Digital Downloads will allow for increases in video (and audio) fidelity that will surpass Blu-ray before the end of the Blu-ray lifecycle. That is simply an opinion, but if you look at the increases in quality in just the last year it is not hard to imagine.


While I agree the infrastructure is improving I'm not sure on the time frame before having FiOS level performance at a cost competitive to today's DSL/Cable prices to the majority of people in the US.

During the HD/BD wars some were touting DOCSIS 3 and how it would render HD/BD moot within the next 2 years (already passed btw).

And here is a prime example of PSound spinning it away.

I ask you why it is valid to consider the revenues of BR alone against all form of DC (HD and SD). Wouldn't be more appropriate to compare SD (DVD + HD (BR) vs all DC?

Can you answer that.

I would suggest you start with reading comprehension.

Earlier in this thread:

The only data we have where we can make a direct comparison is on physical media (as a whole) and Digital Distribution as a whole.

Those numbers show physical media dropping 13.5% and Digital Distribution increasing 21%. I do not believe that helps the discussion in this forum and is unfair to Blu-ray's actual market growth.


There has also already been a discussion about the DEG not providing all the data they normally would. Read and comprehend. It is all in the thread.


Instead of being so focused on attacking me, why not read and understand what I am stating. If I am making an assertion that you disagree with, provide your counter-assertion as well as data and logic to support that assertion. I await your reasoned response.

I also happen to believe that the very nature of Digital Downloads will allow for increases in video (and audio) fidelity that will surpass Blu-ray before the end of the Blu-ray lifecycle. That is simply an opinion, but if you look at the increases in quality in just the last year it is not hard to imagine.

I'd love to read more of your theory of this prospect. In particular, your thoughts on how a digital download will provide an increase in audio fidelity that will surpass lossless audio codecs currently offered on the blu-ray format.

While I agree the infrastructure is improving I'm not sure on the time frame before having FiOS level performance at a cost competitive to today's DSL/Cable prices to the majority of people in the US.

During the HD/BD wars some were touting DOCSIS 3 and how it would render HD/BD moot within the next 2 years (already passed btw).

There is solid growth in faster and greater delivery in broadband, including government mandates for measurement of current state and roadmap.

I don't believe that will render physical media "moot", but it will provide more people with the ability to take advantage of Digital Distribution.


Check out this thread. You may be surprised on how much is happening, including Comcast stating they would deploy DOCSIS 3.0 to 100% of their customers by the end of 2010.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145047

I'd love to read more of your theory of this prospect. In particular, your thoughts on how a digital download will provide an increase in audio fidelity that will surpass lossless audio codecs currently offered on the blu-ray format.

I don't think they will surpass lossless, but they will improve from their current state. Right now audio is not considered a priority, but that will change as increased speeds and penetration of broadband are made.

On the video side we are constantly seeing improvements. In fidelity and usr experience. I would state that the ability for skipping around and restarting video is already superior with Silverlight 3 compared to the experience with Blu-ray. An incremental improvement to be sure, but we are still relatively early in the push for HD video delivered to the home via the internet.

I would suggest checking out this demo:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1161850

Maybe you are right, but there are a few (about 6 million by the end of the year) that would disagree. :rolleyes:

Really, that still leaves over 300 million who might think otherwise! :rolleyes:

I don't care.May be you should care. I do not why you consider Blu-ray a competitor to streaming. If you want to promote streaming then you should be posting in the competitions forums, namely the cable and satellite forums. HD downloads could be considered a competitor Blu-ray.

Just so you will know, when the next great device comes along that is a replacement for Blu-ray I will be here supporting it. I have made many post at AVS* in support of: LaserDisc, DVD over Divx DVD, 19X9 over 4X3, HDTV over SDTV, 5.1/7.1 channel sound over 2 channel sound, D-VHS D-Theater, Blu-ray over HD DVD and 8VSB over COFDM.

*IIRC, there was a loss of some of the archival post at AVS. I was here before 1999 but some of us had to redo our membership for reasons that I can not remember.

May be you should care. I do not why you consider Blu-ray a competitor to streaming. If you want to promote streaming then you should be posting in the competitions forums, namely the cable and satellite forums. HD downloads could be considered a competitor Blu-ray.

Just so you will know, when the next great device comes along that is a replacement for Blu-ray I will be here supporting it. I have made many post at AVS* in support of: LaserDisc, DVD over Divx DVD, 19X9 over 4X3, HDTV over SDTV, 5.1/7.1 channel sound over 2 channel sound, D-VHS D-Theater, Blu-ray over HD DVD and 8VSB over COFDM.

*IIRC, there was a loss of some of the archival post at AVS. I was here before 1999 but some of us had to redo our membership for reasons that I can not remember.

Ummm... I have often stated that Blu-ray and Digital Distribution are complimentary. That is exactly why Blu-ray players are adding streaming services, and will do so in greater numbers.

As far as it's place in the market... Take a look at industry comments. The DEG is including information on Digital Distribution (downloads and streaming) because they realize that a combination of Digital Distribution (DD) and BD are going to be required to spur the overall Home Video market.

The growth is there and is only going to accelerate. Just today there was a story about 500,000 gamers adding Netflix streaming via XBox in the 2nd quarter (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1164420) of the year. There was also a story about televisions with wireless Web connectivity jumping at least fivefold over the next two years (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1164421) and that annual sales of Web-connected TVs would be about 50 million in 2013.

And the single biggest area of growth for DD will be paid video which includes downloads, digital rentals and subscription services. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1162886)

With the kicker being that with all this Digital Distribution growth, Blu-ray will also grow.

Digital Distribution is and will be a major way people view content at home, including direct rental, subscription (and to a lesser extent in the short term) purchased content. This will be the same content being offered on DVD and Blu-ray, and more often with the same release window. And just because it is often missed (or snipped out in selective quoting).... this does not spell doom for Blu-ray. Both will have a place in the market.

Where do they get their information from ?

"Sales of high-definition Blu-ray DVDs surged 91% in the first half, but their total revenue is still $407 million, a relatively minor figure amount of money in Hollywood. Warner Bros., for instance, spent about that much to produce and market just one movie, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."


It DID NOT cost anywhere near $400 million to produce and market Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. If they get little facts like that wrong then what else do they get wrong. Poor journalism strikes again.

Regarding digital downloads - Get back to me in ten years when we might have the infrastructure to cope with it all. Right now bandwidth is restricted with a lot of suppliers and even if it wasn't just how would the suppliers of the movie cope with a million people all trying to download the latest blockbuster on release day ?

I get 25 gigabyte allowance with Zen Internet in the UK. How much allowance does your internet provider give and during peak times how fast are you ?

I also happen to believe that the very nature of Digital Downloads will allow for increases in video (and audio) fidelity that will surpass Blu-ray before the end of the Blu-ray lifecycle. That is simply an opinion, but if you look at the increases in quality in just the last year it is not hard to imagine.



I don't think they will surpass lossless, but they will improve from their current state. Right now audio is not considered a priority, but that will change as increased speeds and penetration of broadband are made.

Well, will it or won't it or do you convinently like to post propaganda as long as you can make a point that DD will be the victor in the immediate future ?

I get 25 gigabyte allowance with Zen Internet in the UK. How much allowance does your internet provider give and during peak times how fast are you ?

I take it you do not have access to Virgin Media?

Regarding broadband infrastructure, I suggest you check out this thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145047

Ummm... I have often stated that Blu-ray and Digital Distribution are complimentary. That is exactly why Blu-ray players are adding streaming services, and will do so in greater numbers.


I believe this is where most of the people who enjoy blu-ray have an issue with you. You keep comparing DD/streaming with blu-ray when blu-ray is exclusively HiDef whereas DD/streaming is mostly SD and in most cases FREE. DD keeps creeping in the HiDef Media forum when the discussion has nothing to do with DD and SD.
When you can post revenue and numbers that are DD AND HiDef exclusively, then you can start to make apple to apple comparisions with blu-ray.
Otherwise, your revenue, numbers and comparison lumping blu-ray with DVD/SD are all propaganda and talking points to creep DD/streaming information into this forum so your can "spread the news" since traffic is dead in your area of the forum.

I believe this is where most of the people who enjoy blu-ray have an issue with you. You keep comparing DD/streaming with blu-ray when blu-ray is exclusively HiDef whereas DD/streaming is mostly SD and in most cases FREE. DD keeps creeping in the HiDef Media forum when the discussion has nothing to do with DD and SD.
When you can post revenue and numbers that are DD AND HiDef exclusively, then you can start to make apple to apple comparisions with blu-ray.
Otherwise, your revenue, numbers and comparison lumping blu-ray with DVD/SD are all propaganda and talking points to creep DD/streaming information into this forum so your can "spread the news" since traffic is dead in your area of the forum.

Indeed. All the usual suspects keep shouting the $968M in DD compared to the $407M (sell through) for bluray without any reservations accounting for what sectors of DD generated that $968M. We know only $196M was actual electronic sellthrough - which automatically means the other $772M was rental only.

Also, of the $968M in DD, there was no mention how much was in HD. If only 10% was HD (reasonable assumption), that's $96.8M total rental and sales for DD in HD. Like how bluray is in....HD! $96.8M is 4x LESS than bluray's sell through alone. Not including bluray rental $$. DD in HD would have to be about 40% of total rentals and sales just to equal bluray's sellthrough amount. And we know there is no way 40% of downloads were in HD.

Yet somehow a select few think it is OK to lump DD rental and sell through in both SD and HD against just bluray sell through. Why? We all know why....

I believe this is where most of the people who enjoy blu-ray have an issue with you. You keep comparing DD/streaming with blu-ray when blu-ray is exclusively HiDef whereas DD/streaming is mostly SD and in most cases FREE. DD keeps creeping in the HiDef Media forum when the discussion has nothing to do with DD and SD.
When you can post revenue and numbers that are DD AND HiDef exclusively, then you can start to make apple to apple comparisions with blu-ray.
Otherwise, your revenue, numbers and comparison lumping blu-ray with DVD/SD are all propaganda and talking points to creep DD/streaming information into this forum so your can "spread the news" since traffic is dead in your area of the forum.

Please show me in the last 60 days where I have introduced the discussion on Digital Distribution in this forum. I post news about DD in the appropriate forum.

I only reply about Digital Distribution here when someone else starts the conversation in the thread. Most of the time it is to correct misinformation.


On a side note, it is becoming very clear that Digital Distribution is a peer to physical media. The DEG added Digital Distribution data because the studios realize that Digital Distribution growth is going to be necessary to make up for the decline in physical media. Even Sony execs are discussing that both Blu-ray and Digital Distribution are going to be required for growth going forward.

And Digital Distribution does have HD content. I would guess that the overall percentage of HD content consumed (vs SD) via Digital Delivery is higher than the overall percentage of HD content consumed (vs SD) than physical media.


I have stated in this forum multiple times that if people wish to discuss Digital Distribution, Video Downloads, Streaming, etc. then they should do so in the appropriate forum. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=184

If you are truly concerned about too much Digital Distribution discussion here (and not just trying to bash), then please post any replies to the appropriate sub-forum.

It DID NOT cost anywhere near $400 million to produce and market Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. If they get little facts like that wrong then what else do they get wrong. Poor journalism strikes again.

Little of topic but

I cant speak for Harry Potter, since I dont have any data about that movie. But $200 million is a credible cost of producing a movie of that scale. And another $200 million in marketing is not unatural.

So while I dont say the paper is right, their numbers does look "correct".

Little of topic but

I cant speak for Harry Potter, since I dont have any data about that movie. But $200 million is a credible cost of producing a movie of that scale. And another $200 million in marketing is not unatural.

So while I dont say the paper is right, their numbers does look "correct".

I would say it is probably pretty close as well ($400 million). The production budget for "Order Of The Phoenix" was around $150 million and that was several years ago. With rising costs in Hollywood, inflation, etc I would not be surprised if the recent HP movie cost very close to $200 million to produce (and then another $200 million for marketing and various other expenses).

Blockbuster movies are expensive, but the payoff can be huge. I noticed that Half Blood Prince has almost already grossed $400 million worldwide. Pretty sure Warner will be happy with their return on this movie, especially after it is released on home video.

Well, will it or won't it or do you convinently like to post propaganda as long as you can make a point that DD will be the victor in the immediate future ?

Read and comprehend. I already answered the question on audio fidelity.

And where have I stated that Digital Distribution will be the "victor" in the immediate future? Please provide specific links and comments, or else admit that comment was a very poorly thought out strawman.

I would say it is probably pretty close as well ($400 million). The production budget for "Order Of The Phoenix" was around $150 million and that was several years ago. With rising costs in Hollywood, inflation, etc I would not be surprised if the recent HP movie cost very close to $200 million to produce (and then another $200 million for marketing and various other expenses).

Blockbuster movies are expensive, but the payoff can be huge. I noticed that Half Blood Prince has almost already grossed $400 million worldwide. Pretty sure Warner will be happy with their return on this movie, especially after it is released on home video.

Variety is stating that "Half Blood Prince" cost $235 million to produce.

"Half-Blood Prince" cost $235 million to produce. Film was directed by David Yates, who is helming the two final "Potter" pics as well.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006166.html

EDIT: No exact cost here for marketing, but you get an idea of the scope. Half Blood Prince also had some unique marketing costs due to it's delayed release date.

http://www.moviemarketingmadness.com/blog/2009/07/15/movie-marketing-madness-harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/

I have often stated that Blu-ray and Digital Distribution are complimentary.PSound, many of us post here for various reasons. Some direct questions: Are you affiliated in anyway and receive compensation from a downloading service, streaming service or distribution service? Service meaning some form of video and audio program content. If yes, then you must disclose that affiliation in your signature line (See AVS rules).

FWIW, I have always used my real name, provided info about myself in the Public Profile and provided a short synopsis about myself, just click the Red in my signature line.

PSound, many of us post here for various reasons. Some direct questions: Are you affiliated in anyway and receive compensation from a downloading service, streaming service or distribution service? Service meaning some form of video and audio program content. If yes, then you must disclose that affiliation in your signature line (See AVS rules).

FWIW, I have always used my real name, provided info about myself in the Public Profile and provided a short synopsis about myself, just click the Red in my signature line.

I have already stated definitively that I do not work, contract or in any way receive compensation from any corporation or entity involved with streaming/downloadable media or home entertainment.

Little of topic but

I cant speak for Harry Potter, since I dont have any data about that movie. But $200 million is a credible cost of producing a movie of that scale. And another $200 million in marketing is not unatural.

So while I dont say the paper is right, their numbers does look "correct".

Absolute rubbish.

Studio's see about 45% of the return from a cinema. If it cost $400 million to produce and market that means they need to make $800 million at the cinema before seeing a return on the investment. Pure fantasy figures. Indeed such figures would ruin a studio.

Yes Harry Potter will make around $900+ million if it proceeds the way it is going but no way did it cost $400 million to make and market it.

The actual cost of marketing a blockbuster movie is between $20 and $40 million dollars and films like Harry Potter tend to automatically have an inbuilt market which means the studio can afford to spend slightly less.

Regarding the leaked information about film costs which you will find on sites like Box Office Mojo well they tend to be from the studio's who will typically increase the figure by 20%.

I can well believe though that the latest Harry Potter cost $235m to make and advertise. I can believe thats it's final total cost but no way can i believe it cost more than that.

PSound regarding Virgin Media. I imagine you are talking about the super high speed broadband that currently only a select few locations throughout the UK can actually get as it requires LLU unbundling of the local exchanges. Nope i don't have it and frankly there is a small print terms and conditions written that would put me off since i already have experience with Virgin broadband when they would cap my high speed internet access and i got around 120kb/s connection speed during daytime hours. That was approaching dial up and it caused huge problems for me. I switched to Zen and i now connect at a very healthy 5.8mb/s which is about the maximum this line is capable of until they work on the exchange which is happening around late 2011 and then i will get around 16mb/s.

Nope i am with a company that does not cap you and reduce your speed pr punish you if you download things. Sure it has a cap but realistically with the present infrastructure in the UK any company that tells you they are offering unlimited is a liar and will hit you with the small print terms and conditions.

Why on earth do you think Virgin Media is that good ?

Here read this site below.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/

I don't need to read threads at AVS on it as i am in the UK and keep up to date with developments on this particular subject. I probably know more about the subject matter than most here and Virgin generally suck as do BT and Tiscali and Talk Talk and AOL since they were bought by Carphone warehouse who now own Tiscali and Talk Talk. They always introduce capping and limits and will do with this product if too many people sign up to it.

User comments on Virgin below.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4006-virgin-media-complete-50meg-rollout-and-trial-10meg-upstream.html#news_comments

Indeed their 50mb service has now introduced traffic management. Typical Virgin and it's why i avoid them as they get you on long contracts then do things like that. The same thing will happen with the new service for those who can actually receive it which isn't many.

Absolute rubbish.

Studio's see about 45% of the return from a cinema. If it cost $400 million to produce and market that means they need to make $800 million at the cinema before seeing a return on the investment. Pure fantasy figures. Indeed such figures would ruin a studio.


What I heard is that studios/distr takes 90% first week, 80% second week etc. But yes sometimes a movie almost ruins a studio (and in some cases it did).


The actual cost of marketing a blockbuster movie is between $20 and $40 million dollars and films like Harry Potter tend to automatically have an inbuilt market which means the studio can afford to spend slightly less.


That sound very low by todays standard.


Regarding the leaked information about film costs which you will find on sites like Box Office Mojo well they tend to be from the studio's who will typically increase the figure by 20%.


Yes, the overhead cost. Helps them keep royalites money. ;)


I can well believe though that the latest Harry Potter cost $235m to make and advertise. I can believe thats it's final total cost but no way can i believe it cost more than that.


I think that cost can be very accurate (-20 to 30%). The actors in the Harry Potter movies aint cheap. 235 million including marketing seem very low considering movies like Mummy3 and Termintor Salvation used alot more.[/QUOTE]

User comments on Virgin below.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4006-virgin-media-complete-50meg-rollout-and-trial-10meg-upstream.html#news_comments
Interesting. Looks like folks using it are saying they are able to download 180 GB a night.

Looks like VM is not a good solution if you are heavy into P2P.

EDIT: BTW.. thanks for pointing out that site. I am going to use it for info in the Broadband thread.

This story is a great example of news I would not have otherwise seen:

BT speeds up fibre rollout
BT have announced the next locations where their fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) based broadband will be available. The 69 locations cover areas all across the UK including England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. By March 2010, a million homes will be covered, and by early summer 2010, they expect to have a reach of 1.5 million homes, continuing to 40% of the UK (10 million homes) by 2012.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4004-bt-speeds-up-fibre-rollout.html

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4004-bt-speeds-up-fibre-rollout.html

What I heard is that studios/distr takes 90% first week, 80% second week etc. But yes sometimes a movie almost ruins a studio (and in some cases it did).



That sound very low by todays standard.



Yes, the overhead cost. Helps them keep royalites money. ;)



I think that cost can be very accurate (-20 to 30%). The actors in the Harry Potter movies aint cheap. 235 million including marketing seem very low considering movies like Mummy3 and Termintor Salvation used alot more.

Find me some real life figures from a reputable site on the net and i will believe or get a studio head in on this thread.

But i don't see a studio spending more than 20% of the budget on advertising and marketing.

Terminator: Salvation is lucky it's been popular overseas because in America it could be considered a bit of a flop. It's also lucky DVD can bring in as much revenue these days as cinema tickets as thats where it will become huge.

Even then it's made $356m worldwide. If it cost $400m to make and market then that studio cannot be happy even if DVD will see it make money.

I don't think it did cost $400m to make and market but i'm going by what some of you think in this thread.

I think a lot of studio's play the budget game and release these very high figures hoping people will think wow that film cost a lot i bet it's got a lot of neat CGI in it or something to that effect. They play with the human mind as to try and entice us to watch by telling us this film cost such and such to make and obviously it helps to tag such a film as a blockbuster Hollywood production if the cost is high.

I bet most figures released by the studio's are very much higher than the real cost of making the movie and the same goes for advertising costs.

In addition to the $235 million production cost info from Variety, we have some more info on marketing costs.

A dozen big-budget pictures are set to crowd into theaters over the short 16-week popcorn movie season, many with worldwide marketing budgets that will top $100 million each.

Studio executives contend that if they want to get out the word to the public about their movies, they have to pony up.

From May through August, the studios will together spend about $1 billion to market globally such high-profile titles as "The Da Vinci Code" sequel "Angels & Demons," "Transformers 2," the sixth "Harry Potter" film, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," "G.I. Joe," "Star Trek," "Night at the Museum 2," and "Ice Age 3." Because the summer movie season can account for as much as 40% of the year's box office revenue, capturing as much of it as possible is crucial for the studios.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/20/business/fi-ct-movies20

Interesting. Looks like folks using it are saying they are able to download 180 GB a night.

Looks like VM is not a good solution if you are heavy into P2P.

EDIT: BTW.. thanks for pointing out that site. I am going to use it for info in the Broadband thread.

This story is a great example of news I would not have otherwise seen:



http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4004-bt-speeds-up-fibre-rollout.html

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4004-bt-speeds-up-fibre-rollout.html

Keep reading. They have already brought in traffic management for the 50mb product. How long before they do so for the latest product with higher speeds.

Sign you up on 12 or 18 month contracts and then they point out the small print which allows them to introduce capping and traffic management.

If you think a company that does that is good then great i'm happy for you. I personally have experienced their service first hand and do not want to ever experience it again.

For this region it's still late 2011 before they do work on the exchange which will enable people in this region to get a maximum 20mb/s although i will likely get around 16mb/s when that happens.

Regarding your last post. It's all third hand news and studio's put this garbage out to generate interest. It's one studio trying to get one over on the other studio by saying they spent more on their latest blockbuster.

Worldwide budgets to market of $100 M would mean about $50 M to market domestically as the revenues domestic and international are roughly even so one can assume rough parity in the marketing as well. Thats for the tent pole releases so typical ons could be less so $30 M might very well be a normal order of magnitude for a good but but non blockbuster release?

I have already stated definitively that I do not work, contract or in any way receive compensation from any corporation or entity involved with streaming/downloadable media or home entertainment.What about a home business, privately owned business, private closely held business or privately owned LLC, etc.?

What about a home business, privately owned business, private closely held business or privately owned LLC, etc.?

ROFL, none of the above. I have no financial stake in any of this (actually some of my 401k mutual funds may, but I don't manage those beyond normal investment risk criteria).

Why not ask all the same questions to all those who post here? Oh wait... because it only matters if you want to setup an ad hominem against someone you disagree with. :cool:

If you want to counter my posts, do so with data and analysis. I welcome the interaction as it can only result in more knowledge and understanding for those involved.

Keep reading. They have already brought in traffic management for the 50mb product. How long before they do so for the latest product with higher speeds.

From what I read, it looks like P2P is the main concern.

If someone is downloading 180 GB a night, they are probably getting a solid connection. That is basically the equivalent of 4 BD titles (assuming that the actual movie encode is 45 GB).

Pretty damn impressive if you ask me!

Regarding your last post. It's all third hand news and studio's put this garbage out to generate interest. It's one studio trying to get one over on the other studio by saying they spent more on their latest blockbuster.

We have Variety and the LA Times providing information on production costs and marketing costs.

This also lines up with the story originally referenced. But you are dismissing them because.... you just "think" they are wrong?

You asked for data from a reputable source. Variety and the LA Times are both respected sources in Hollywood. I understand if you want to personally dismiss them, but you certainly cannot expect anyone else to support your view without some source to counter the information.

If you have other reputable sources with conflicting information, please share it.

We have Variety and the LA Times providing information on production costs and marketing costs.

This also lines up with the story originally referenced. But you are dismissing them because.... you just "think" they are wrong?

You asked for data from a reputable source. Variety and the LA Times are both respected sources in Hollywood. I understand if you want to personally dismiss them, but you certainly cannot expect anyone else to support your view without some source to counter the information.

If you have other reputable sources with conflicting information, please share it.

Nice try that. Counter argument and get me to try and mention sources when the whole point of my post is that the studio's themselves leak this information to those newspapers and inflate the costs. Thats actually part of the marketing strategy to inflate costs so people will think they are in for an expensive treat.

But i don't see a studio spending more than 20% of the budget on advertising and marketing.


Imagine if you invested +$100 million on something, you can very well feel the need to spend some marketing money so you make the money back. To be cheap on the marketing, could be a disaster.

Its a gamble for the studios. If they spend large amount of marketing money. The movie must make alot of money to cover both marketing and production. But if they dont spend enough marketing money, they maybe will not get enought to even cover the production cost.


Terminator: Salvation is lucky it's been popular overseas because in America it could be considered a bit of a flop. It's also lucky DVD can bring in as much revenue these days as cinema tickets as thats where it will become huge.


Not so lucky for Warner, that only have the domestic rights, but better for Sony that handles the international market. Yes DVD has been a savior for many movies, you could even say that the theater works more as a marketing tool(for most non blockbuster) for the DVD sales.


Even then it's made $356m worldwide. If it cost $400m to make and market then that studio cannot be happy even if DVD will see it make money.


At least Warner is not happy. ;)


I think a lot of studio's play the budget game and release these very high figures hoping people will think wow that film cost a lot i bet it's got a lot of neat CGI in it or something to that effect. They play with the human mind as to try and entice us to watch by telling us this film cost such and such to make and obviously it helps to tag such a film as a blockbuster Hollywood production if the cost is high.

I bet most figures released by the studio's are very much higher than the real cost of making the movie and the same goes for advertising costs.

I dont doubt the guys in suits, are playing with the numbers day in and day out depending on who they gonna present it to. But I also think the marketing and production cost has gone up recent years.

Nice try that. Counter argument and get me to try and mention sources when the whole point of my post is that the studio's themselves leak this information to those newspapers and inflate the costs. Thats actually part of the marketing strategy to inflate costs so people will think they are in for an expensive treat.

Do you have a link to a reputable source that studios are "leaking" this information as part of their marketing strategy?

Imagine if you invested +$100 million on something, you can very well feel the need to spend some marketing money so you make the money back. To be cheap on the marketing, could be a disaster.

Its a gamble for the studios. If they spend large amount of marketing money. The movie must make alot of money to cover both marketing and production. But if they dont spend enough marketing money, they maybe will not get enought to even cover the production cost.



Not so lucky for Warner, that only have the domestic rights, but better for Sony that handles the international market. Yes DVD has been a savior for many movies, you could even say that the theater works more as a marketing tool(for most non blockbuster) for the DVD sales.



At least Warner is not happy. ;)



I dont doubt the guys in suits, are playing with the numbers day in and day out depending on who they gonna present it to. But I also think the marketing and production cost has gone up recent years.

Ok i will concede that $100m worldwide marketing costs is reasonable on a very high production Hollywood blockbuster.

See folks i can be reasoned with :D

But earlier in the thread it was $200m and someone saying the latest Harry Potter was really a $400m production and thats what i disagree with. I disagree with that because i don't think the studio's give accurate production cost figures to the press and i think it benefits them to inflate their figures. Perhaps for the stock market or some other entity - I don't know but it benefits some of them.

Now $100m worldwide is probably true of the huge blockbusters but i'll still bet the average Hollywood production gets no more than 20% spent on advertising costs and even less in many cases.

See i have climbed down on my position. I am not one of those people who cannot be reasoned with and nothing is set in stone except King Arthurs sword.

I will say that Hollywood has been known to have "interesting" accounting practices.

That said, they likely do have the production cost for Harry Potter at $235 million with worldwide marketing costs north of $100 million.

Do you have a link to a reputable source that studios are "leaking" this information as part of their marketing strategy?


I have read a lot of information over the years and some of that information was with regards Hollywood production budgets and how they would inflate their costs by around 20% to 40%. That was back in the late eighties and early nineties.

Can i give you a link to that article. Nope as i didn't read it on the internet and it's a memory and one i recall but it's what i believe and i share that info with you. You can dismiss my memories and stick with what you know.

We all have our own individual thoughts on many things and my thoughts on this subject based on what i have read about the subject in the past is that studio's inflate the released figures.

Nope i have no proof whatsoever. It's what i will continue to believe though.

Yes the overhead cost are certainly included in the numbers.

here is an interesting article in case some hasnt already posted it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/06/harry-potter-countdown-are-dvd-fans-still-under-the-wizards-spell-.html


and some wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#cite_note-budget-0

time for the old reminder

challenge [the info in] the post: never the poster

;)

Yes the overhead cost are certainly included in the numbers.

here is an interesting article in case some hasnt already posted it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/06/harry-potter-countdown-are-dvd-fans-still-under-the-wizards-spell-.html


and some wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#cite_note-budget-0

Well there you go (from the article):
And the bar for "Harry Potter" is higher than ever. Warner Bros. spent $250 million to produce "Half-Blood Prince" and will invest $155 million to market and distribute the movie, according to people familiar with the situation.

$405 million total.

I have chatted several times with a Disney insider and he has told me the same thing. For most blockbuster movies, you can plan on spending just about the same money to market and distribute the movie as you do producing it. He told me that the vast majority of movies do not turn a profit until they are released on home video. And I have little reason to doubt him as he seems spot on with all the information he has shared with me over the past couple of years.

Seeing as how we are talking about movies and their expense . . .

With Transformers 2 - it has earned $330M+ so far.

So how much do the studio(s) get and how much do the theaters get? That number is gross revenue.

Seeing as how we are talking about movies and their expense . . .

With Transformers 2 - it has earned $330M+ so far.

So how much do the studio(s) get and how much do the theaters get? That number is gross revenue.

In general it is assumed that the studios get about 1/2 of the domestic gross. Advertising, print costs, etc. all have to factor in.

The percentage of international distribution is a lot less to the studios.

Transformers 2 is listed as $200M production cost. So it is on track to become profitable.

IMO, Netflix & Blockbuster are probably not very happy with news like this:

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment and Redbox have announced a multiyear distribution agreement that will make SPHE new-release, direct-to-video and catalog titles available to consumers through more than 17,000 Redbox kiosks nationwide

Full story here (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/sony-deal-with-redbox-16441).

It sure would be interesting to know the Netflix interoffice attitude toward Wal*Mart now (Wal*Mart has large number of Redbox kiosks nationwide).

IMO, Netflix & Blockbuster are probably not very happy with news like this:



Full story here (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/sony-deal-with-redbox-16441).

It sure would be interesting to know the Netflix interoffice attitude toward Wal*Mart now (Wal*Mart has large number of Redbox kiosks nationwide).

I am guessing that Universal is the one company that is the least happy about this.


This is a purely defensive move by Sony (and Disney and Lionsgate). I guarantee you they would prefer if the new effective price of rentals for new titles (including blockbuster titles) was not $1 (of which they only see a percentage of revenue).

They must have figured they could not stop Redbox from operating kiosks at such a devalued rate for new titles (due to first sale doctrine), and are looking to at least keep Redbox from dumping a glut of used discs on the market several weeks after new releases.


It is great news for consumers as the new effective rental rate of $1 for new titles really forces studios to take a look at how they can improve delivery (and lower costs) with the target of $1 (or less) revenue for rentals.


From the article:

Recent Rentrak data provided by the Digital Entertainment Group showed rental revenue grew 8% in the first-half while sellthrough revenue fell, indicating consumers are starting to rent more, rather than buy discs, in a difficult economy.

“Even before the recession we were getting 65% to 75% of transactions from rental channels,” Bishop said. “Just like in every category, we’re seeing consumers start to trade down. We can either ignore that trend, or choose to find ways to maximize our profitability. We chose the latter.”

It seems they are eliminating a lot of jobs and middlemen to go more direct. This is a pet peeve of mine as a business owner who believes in keeping people in jobs. The biggest expense of almost every business with employees is the employees. The best way for corporations to maximize profit and create greater personal wealth is to minimize or eliminate the biggest expense of the business.

Anyway, while this seems and or is great for consumers, as is Wal Mart, there are a lot of negatives and a huge ripple effect this kind of retailing has on the market place.

This is a purely defensive move by Sony (and Disney and Lionsgate). I guarantee you they would prefer if the new effective price of rentals for new titles (including blockbuster titles) was not $1 (of which they only see a percentage of revenue).I have not been in Blockbuster to rent for sometime but they used to charge something like $4.00 for a five day rental. I believe Hollywood Video does the same. Redbox charges $1.00 per day, so if you keep a movie for five days then you owe $5.00. If you return after one day then you owe a $1.00 and the title is available for another customer so it would be interesting to know the actual money made per disc by Redbox vs. B&M outlets.

Anyway, while this seems and or is great for consumers, as is Wal Mart, there are a lot of negatives and a huge ripple effect this kind of retailing has on the market place.I bet the number of small video rental businesses that were put out of business by Blockbuster, Hollywood and Netflix would surprise many people. There were at least four in my small town. There is still a grudge held against Blockbuster by some of the local folks.

In general it is assumed that the studios get about 1/2 of the domestic gross. Advertising, print costs, etc. all have to factor in.

The percentage of international distribution is a lot less to the studios.

Transformers 2 is listed as $200M production cost. So it is on track to become profitable.

If the plan I heard was true, the studios take 90% of the profit the first week, 80% the second week, 70% third and so on.

So I think Transformers 2 already made some profit for the studio.

Since its made $764 million worldwide so far.

IMO, Netflix & Blockbuster are probably not very happy with news like this:



Full story here (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/sony-deal-with-redbox-16441).

It sure would be interesting to know the Netflix interoffice attitude toward Wal*Mart now (Wal*Mart has large number of Redbox kiosks nationwide).

Regarding the Redbox/Sony deal:

The deal is limited to DVD, and does not include Blu-ray Discs.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6672210.html

The deal is limited to DVD, and does not include Blu-ray Discs.

The HMM article did not make that distinction, if it had then I would not have posted here about the article. Sorry anyone if I caused any confusion about the Redbox and Sony deal.

The HMM article did not make that distinction, if it had then I would not have posted here about the article. Sorry anyone if I caused any confusion about the Redbox and Sony deal.

I don't think either HMM or Video Business had it in the original (at least I did not notice). It may have been updated this AM.