Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DVD sales going south?

This is topic DVD sales going south? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005063

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-24-2007, 06:54 PM:

Well this is surprising. Theatre ticket sales are up over last year, but:

Link

Sales of DVDs Plunge To Lowest Level Ever
The first quarter of the year was the worst ever for home video sales in the DVD era, Daily Variety reported today (Tuesday) as it cited a report by Video Business that sales fell 5.1 percent to $5.6 billion during the quarter. Rentals, however, were down only 1 percent. Nevertheless, executives of studio home-video units told the trade publication that business has picked up considerably in the second quarter and blamed a weak release schedule on the earlier downturn.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-24-2007, 07:41 PM:

How about blaming crappy movies that no one wants to see let alone own.

That's why I haven't bought anything recently.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-24-2007, 07:45 PM:

i just think its too over saturated... I mean there's only so many movies you can have in your collection before it bankrupts you... and only so many hours in the day you can watch them. I know that Netflix certainly has saved me tons of money that I would have wasted on dvds that I only would watch once.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-24-2007, 08:16 PM:

..and let alone the Internet downloads of movies to copy for your own..plus the DVD ripping that is available when renting DVD's....

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-24-2007, 08:52 PM:

I'm not surprised to see such a report.

A sales decline of 5% versus a rental decline of 1% is a pretty telling figure.

Like Mark, I think the main problem hurting DVD sales is a general lack of quality movie releases. Simple as that. Sure, there's always been sequels, remakes, TV-series send-ups and other derivative content but never to the degree we're seeing from major studios today. The 1990s seems almost like a "golden age" of film-making by comparison.

So much media consolidation has happened that only around 5 companies control much of what gets delivered to movie theaters, home video, TV, music and radio. Big corporations despise change. They would prefer to sell the same old shit than do anything innovative (or risky). It's impossible to truly control the trends in any creative industry like movies and music. Deliberately stifling the natural cycle of change in those businesses makes about as much sense as irrigating crops with salt water.

Not nearly as many new movies are worth buying on DVD today as compared to just a few years ago. So many of these re-treads are simply met with the reaction, "maybe I'll rent it or wait for it on cable."

The fact the DVD market has matured to saturation just compounds the problem. Most people who have been collecting DVDs for more than a couple years or so likely have their entertainment racks filled with their favorite movies on DVD. That's how mine has been for about the last three years. My DVD buying habits really started trailing off about 3 years ago. I don't think I've bought more than 4 or 5 DVDs over the past year.

Studios have also been abusing the hell out of customers with numerous re-releases of DVDs. There's lots of catalog titles that have been released twice or more on DVD. The double-dipping ends up hurting the studios because the customers get wise to it and feel there is no urgency to buy a particular title now. Just wait until it gets double dipped again!

On the subject of people ripping DVDs to their hard drives and making illegal copies, I don't think Hollywood is losing very much to that. First, I think many of the people dubbing DVDs haven't been buying many of them in the first place. More important, the process of copying a copy-protected DVD is way too complicated and time consuming for the overwhelming majority of the general public. We're talking about the same general public where the majority couldn't figure out how to program a VCR. Downloading the movies is equally complicated and often a very treacherous practice. Many PCs are hosed with all sorts of computers viruses when exposed to many file sharing networks.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-24-2007, 09:37 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Most people who have been collecting DVDs for more than a couple years or so likely have their entertainment racks filled with their favorite movies on DVD.

That could be alot of it, all right. I now have about 90% of my favorites; most of the DVDs I've bought in the last year or two have been TV shows, and there aren't many of them left that I want.

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 04-24-2007, 10:02 PM:

In the last year or two, I've been intentionally avoiding buying DVDs of things that were shot in 35mm because I figure I want to buy them in Blu-Ray. Except I haven't figured out how to get a cost effective Blu-Ray player yet.

(I have been buying MacGyver DVDs, because I don't expect Blu-Ray to improve the quality there significantly, but maybe I am being naive.)

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-24-2007, 11:25 PM:

You bought MacGyver dvd's? Ouch... as much as I loved the show, the transfers were pretty horrible. Since the show was finished on tape, I dont think they'll be releasing them to blu ray unless they go back to the original elements. I'm buying Magnum PI myself which was finished on film and the transfers seem to be from prints and in pretty good shape for the most part. I dont know if i'd buy it in HD if they would release it in that format though

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 04-25-2007, 01:21 AM:

The reason I haven't bought any DVD's in the last year is due to Netflix. If I can pay the cost of 1 DVD a month to Netflix, and watch as many as I want, as long as I want, Why would I waste my money buying one DVD? Netflix has an extensive library, and a 2 day turnaround time.

In my opinion, Netflix, Hollywood Video's "MVP" program, and other monthly DVD rental services are a big reason DVD sales have declined.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-25-2007, 06:58 AM:

Some big price drops are showing up locally (Central Ohio). A grocery chain (Giant Eagle) is offering NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM for $13.99, and QUEEN and DEJA VU for $15.99, but with a $6 coupon if you buy both, dropping the price to $12.99 each.

This is great for my mother-in-law who can't get out to movies...she loves to come over and watch films.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-25-2007, 07:16 AM:

A lot of the films coming out in the last 5 years or so are what I call "One Timers".

Meaning there is no point in seeing them more than once. Whether you see the film at the Movie Theatre or rent them on DVD. They are very forgettable and seeing them once is usually plenty. Sometimes seeing them once is one time too many.

I continually build my DVD collection. However, my collection consists more of older films (from the 1950's through to the 1990's). Finding old movies on DVD has actually become a hobby of mine.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 04-25-2007, 07:48 AM:

I'm not sure how much of the 1% this accounts for or not - but on demand technology that is available from most cable providers has certainly slowed my purchases of DVD.

Sure, the selection is relatively limited now, but it is much better than it was a year ago and will most likely keep increasing.

If I am not leaving my house to rent most of my movies, I am less likely to buy a DVD.

For example, if I am at the store and there is a new movie on sale that I want to see, I have the option of Buying it, renting it at Blockbuster or watching it on demand. In most cases, I can even watch it in HD on Demand. If I really like the movie and still feel compelled to buy it, THEN I consider getting the DVD.

This may not be the same for everybody, but on demand has definitely changed my purchasing habits.

Unfortunately, it has also changed the way I go to the movies. Even when I worked for a theater chain and could go for free, in most cases I didn't since I could watch it at home 2-3 months later.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-25-2007, 08:02 AM:

Isn't this pretty much what happened to music CDs in the mid-1990s? The format had matured, players had become cheap, and users had already purchased pretty much all the catalog titles that they wanted (often as an upgrade from older LPs and cassettes). From that point forward, sales would be weighted toward newer releases.

Same for DVDs. Most of the big catalog titles have already been released and those who wanted them have purchased them. The last few years' worth of movies have mostly been dull and generally not worth buying (with a few exceptions), and I am sure that this hasn't helped sales of new releases. I suspect that the anticipation of new formats (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, downloads) has probably caused people to delay additional purchases of catalog titles, now that it has become (reasonably) clear that the DVD format is probably midway through its lifespan before the Next Big Thing takes over.

Add to that the increase in options for both in-home and out-of-home entertainment and it's really not surprising at all (to me, at least) that sales would be down.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-25-2007, 09:15 AM:

quote: Tristan Lane
monthly DVD rental services are a big reason DVD sales have declined.

Good. Now they're getting a taste of what it feels like to have the rug pulled out from under them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2007, 10:22 AM:

I think long-term, the video software industry is going to mostly disappear. Eventually you will "subscribe" to an on-demand video service for everything. You'll be able to watch anything you want when you want. The concept of putting a device into a player will be quaint within the next 20 years or less. Of course, the downside is, you'll have to pay each time you watch something, but it'll probably still be cheaper than buying DVDs.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2007, 10:47 AM:

Thats odd since I seem to buy enough of them... but at the 5.99 counter at Smith's and mainly older films.. I rarely have time to go to the movies [Eek!]

.

Mark

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 04-25-2007, 11:15 AM:

Some of you may not agree with what I am going to say:

I am afraid that this also shows where the theater industry will eventually end up.
With subscription services and video download services popping up everywhere AND a narrowing window between theater release to rental - what is going to keep people going to the movies?
Eventually, whether we want it to happen or not, there will be a day when most movies are released day and date with video. When that happens, there needs to be something compelling to bring people to theaters.
My guess is the only theaters that will be doing ok at this point will be the ones with some sort of gimmick - like the largest screen or a cinema grill type where real food is served.
I am not going to pay $10+ a person plus concessions to sit in a 55 seat auditorium with a small screen. What I think this may mean is that a lot of the 20+ screen mega plexes popping up everywhere are going to be in trouble at some point.
Sure, there will always be an audience (like teenagers out on Sat night) but I think even that will dwindle as the release gap gets smaller and it becomes easier to choose your movie from home.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2007, 11:55 AM:

If Hollywood keeps churning out the crap they have been I couldn't agree with you more!!

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2007, 12:34 PM:

Most of the DVDs that I buy are for gifts. Likewise, most of the ones I own were gifts. Mostly I am using HBO-HD, HBO-on-demand, and TCM for the films I watch on television. Also have a gift Netflix subscription (3-DVD plan).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2007, 12:38 PM:

I think retail sales of pre-recorded movies on disc will continue for quite some time to come. Many customers simply prefer having a tangible product in their hands or on their bookshelf. A good parallel example to this is computer software. Lots of people still prefer to buy a box with the discs inside rather than simply download it.

However, I think the video rental business clearly has its days numbered. Eventually average Internet speeds across much of the nation will reach 30 million bits per second and well beyond that. I'm positive the United States will be there within the next 10 years. The pace of improvement is happening much faster in other developed nations and that's going to force the United States government and the dipshit telcos operating here to stop getting by trying to do the same old thing. The imbalance works as a very serious economic threat.

Once the Internet is fast enough in enough places, stores like Blockbuster Video will be doomed. On demand movies and other video streaming in real time at 1080p HD resolution will not only kill off most video stores. It could also cause a huge amount of upheaval in the television broadcast industry. Traditional forms of over-the-air broadcasting, as well as cable and satellite, could all get torpedoed by this. Broadcast networks are used to competition coming from other domestic rivals. Local TV stations mainly compete against other local affiliates. All of that could change radically with an ultra high speed Internet.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-25-2007, 02:54 PM:

Funny you should mention that, Bobby. Yesterday, I noticed a nearby rental store that had closed this week.

quote: John Pytlak
TCM for the films I watch on television

You can't get much better than that! [Wink]

TCM is one of my favorite channels.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-26-2007, 05:39 AM:

Whoever thought this a worthy news story is invited to come inspect my DVD collection, and if they think I don't have enough I will gladly go buy more to help the industry. [Wink]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-26-2007, 11:52 AM:

I will have to disagree about DVD costs being higher than before. Yes, the MSRP may be higher but stores like Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Circuit City as well as Costco and Sam's Club never sell them at those prices when they are released. If your took advantage of Best Buy's offer this week, one could buy "THE QUEEN and DE JAVU"" for $12.95 each if you bought both of them together. You can also get "A NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM" for "$14.95 if you used a coupon that came with ERAGON" at Costco. The only thing that has changed as far as I know with many new DVD's is the release of two versions of the same movie - a single and a double disc set with the two disc set costing about seven dollars more. Yes, compared to Laserdiscs, DVDs are still a great bargain especially if you wait a couple of months when many are offered for ten dollars or less.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2007, 01:01 PM:

One major problem: a lot of those DVDs aren't worth the space they take up on an entertainment shelf regardless of the price cuts.

Many movies are indeed "one timers" if they're worth watching at all. If the movie ends up being watched just once, then money was wasted if that movie was bought rather than rented.

I just don't see any many new movies being released these days that stand up to repeat viewings. There's a few, but just not enough. Not as many as compared to a few years ago and well before then.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-26-2007, 07:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If the movie ends up being watched just once, then money was wasted if that movie was bought rather than rented.

I don't see that at all. I have lots of DVDs that I haven't had time to watch yet, or ones that I might want to watch again "sometime," when I'm in the mood for that particular show. If I ever decide I don't want a disk anymore, I can always eBay it. That way I've enjoyed it to my heart's content, with no "time limit," and I might even get back more than I originally spent.

[quote]I just don't see any many new movies being released these days that stand up to repeat viewings. There's a few, but just not enough. Not as many as compared to a few years ago and well before then./quote]

That could be just a sign of age. [Big Grin]

I think the 18-to-25 year olds of today will still be watching "Star Wars Episode III" and "Wedding Crashers" when they're in their 50s, the same as I still like to watch "Green Acres," one of my favorite shows when I was a kid.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-26-2007, 07:30 PM:

What's unfortunate these days is that you can't really recoup your costs on the DVD by selling it on ebay. Back within the first few years of DVD's release (97-01) I was regularly buying them the first week at best buy or costco, where they'd be like $15.99 or so, and I would sell it on ebay if I didn't like it, and usually made enough back so that all I was out was the cost of a rental (say around $4 bucks or so). Heck, I even made MORE money than it cost me for a DVD of Not Another Teen Movie one time. With the over saturation of the market it's tough to do that anymore in my experience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2007, 09:45 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't see that at all. I have lots of DVDs that I haven't had time to watch yet, or ones that I might want to watch again "sometime," when I'm in the mood for that particular show.

I guess that's where our opinions will immediately differ. While I do have friends who still have store-bought DVDs in their shrink wrap (even months or years after purchase), any DVD I have purchased I immediately watched. If I didn't feel like watching that movie then, why buy it then? Why not just buy it when I feel like watching it? It's sort of a "positive cash flow" kind of thing.

Also, I still fail to see the point in buying any "one timer" quality movie. A new release costs $3.99 to rent typically. There are no legitimate stores anywhere selling new movies for that low a price. Even movies in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart typically cost at least a couple of dollars more. And those movies only hit that $5-$6 price point 2-3 years after release (and the movies usually have to really suck balls as well). After just a few months the typical rental fee on a not-so-new release will drop to $1.99 or even 99 cents.

And there's still that space issue I brought up. Lots of DVDs I don't watch waste space on my entertainment shelves. I'm not going to buy DVDs as decoration to fill up a shelf. Considering how bad some movies are these days I don't want many of my friends knowing I even own some of that trash. Some of those movies are so shitty it would be less embarrassing for the girlfriend to find the stash of hardcore porn.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-26-2007, 10:38 PM:

Anyone still paying $4 a pop for rentals at blockbuster should look into their online rental system, its comparable in price with Netflix but the plus with blockbuster is that you can drop the movie off at a store and it's returned, and you can rent one at the store as your next choice for no charge (goes towards your monthly fee).

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-27-2007, 04:37 AM:

But, you watch - you collectors out there with a wall to wall rack covered with DVD's: let them age a few dozen or so years, esp if the original format dies off, then have them in the cellar really keeping the age on them.

Then, when the time comes to bring them into the light: you might have a "gold mine" of something valuable down the road.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-27-2007, 09:54 AM:

I'm not so sure about that. With storage getting cheaper and more plentiful all the time (thereby allowing online keeping of content), and playback device formats disappearing every decade or two along with computer "reading" devices (seen any 5" floppy drives lately?), in 50 years all those DVDs will probably be unplayable artifacts.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-27-2007, 11:37 AM:

I have *lots* of DVDs that I've never watched. Some of them are movies, some are boxed sets of TV shows. Some I bought, some were gifts. At the point I realized this was happening (duh!) I cut *way* down on the purchase of new DVDs, and I asked family members to stop gifting me with them too. I'll buy one every once in a while now, but it's "must have" titles only, which I generally watch immediately. Examples are "Borat" and "World's Fastest Indian" (yes, there's no accounting for taste).

I really think there's a whole lot more competition for people's leisure time now, what with the Internet and all (lol) and attention spans are getting shorter all the time. It seems almost like a waste of my time to sit in front of the TV for 2 hours watching a movie I've probably already seen, unless it's something that I really like a lot. Going to a movie at a theatre is a different issue for me: That's more an "event".

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-27-2007, 05:08 PM:

As much as I hate to support Wal-Mart, I've gotten a lot of good (and bad) DVDs from them for under $5. Every few months they'll put out a pallet of discs usually from one studio (usually Paramount, but they've done this with Fox, Universal and Sony titles too) priced at $4.88 or in some cases $3.88. It's usually a mix of movies from the past couple years and a few classics. Usually I'll pick up anything that I'm even remotely interested in. Sort of like the days of the cutout laserdiscs at Camelot Music stores, only a lot fewer direct-to-video junk titles.

The bad side of this, for the studios, is that it's really de-valuing DVDs for a lot of people. When you can get something for $4, you're reluctant to pay $20 or more for other titles, especially when they might reach the bargain bins too in a short time.

I've never bought a used DVD to save money, in fact I usually laugh when I see used copies of titles selling for more than what I paid for them new. I also don't rent, mainly because in the beginning they were threatening to price them the way VHS tapes were priced for rental stores- meaning most new releases would be priced around $100 because most copies would end up being bought by video stores to rent out. Thankfully that never happened, and it's probably too late to do that now. A few chain stores had already said they'd be very angry with the studios if they went that route, and with DVDs being so easy to copy now they would just be asking people to do that.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-27-2007, 09:13 PM:

I'm still amazed that the studios haven't figured out a way to get a piece of the rental action from the video stores. Forget piracy...they should be getting 50% of all those rentals.

But, in a few years when on-demand puts all the rental stores out of business, they'll get 100% of it, I guess.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-27-2007, 10:30 PM:

Is this just because the same crap movies that did no business at the cinemas are now being released on DVD?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-28-2007, 12:01 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm still amazed that the studios haven't figured out a way to get a piece of the rental action from the video stores. Forget piracy...they should be getting 50% of all those rentals.

When it really boils down they already do. Rather than waiting for each rental, though, they get it all up front.

Of course there's Rentrack too... which, depending on how big you are and your volume, could end up with them getting 50% or more. I'd imagine studio revenues would account for a significant slice of Rentrack's fees.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-28-2007, 05:47 AM:

With VHS, some of the rental stores had a deal called "revenue sharing" where they'd pay less for the tapes in exchange for giving the studios a portion of the rental income from each one. I think some are doing that with DVDs now too, though thankfully they haven't seen the need to screw over those who'd rather buy them. Netflix has some sort of deal with many studios, some of their discs have "Netflix" printed on them presumably to stop people from keeping or selling them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2007, 09:42 AM:

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea
When it really boils down they already do. Rather than waiting for each rental, though, they get it all up front.

How do you figure that? They sell a video to a store for 10 or 15 bucks and then the store rents it a hundred or more times over the next year for 3 bucks a rental.

That'd be like a movie theatre only paying film rent for the first day's ticket sales.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2007, 11:14 AM:

The video stores have to pay more for those DVDs than we do. They can't simply purchase their rental copies from Wal-Mart, Circuit City or any other retailer.

Remember back in the 1980s and early 1990s when many VHS releases had "rental pricing," where the movies often cost $70-$90? Six months later their prices would fall down to $20-$30. I don't know what the current "rental pricing" is on DVDs currently, but it's certainly more than the $20 average we pay at the store.

Major video store chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video and online services like Netflix can negotiate better deals for themselves on a movie by movie basis. Still, the movie distributor has to get their cut of rental action by getting all the money up front in selling their wares to the video stores.

A few years from now when Internet bandwidths allow it to happen, the movie studios will likely have their own video on demand services where you simply log into their servers, pay a fee and then watch the movie stream to your TV set in 1080p in real time.

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-28-2007, 11:39 AM:

DVD's for the consumer market normally have a text at the back of the box and on the DVD itself that says its prohibited to show it in public or use it for rental services. You won't find that last one on DVD's from your local rental store.

[text added]

[ 04-28-2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Patrick de Groot ]

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 04-28-2007, 01:20 PM:

I'll download a film or go to the cinema before I pay $6.00 (CND) for a new release at block buster. Rip off!, and BTW Video stores can buy their DVD's where ever they like... who checks anyway?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-28-2007, 01:44 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
How do you figure that? They sell a video to a store for 10 or 15 bucks and then the store rents it a hundred or more times over the next year for 3 bucks a rental.

When I last had a lot of involvement in rentals about 6 years ago now, most DVDs cost way more than $20 (like upwards of $50 or more) and daily rentals were less than $3. Some B and other crap can usually be found cheap though.

Taking those costs into account and realizing that your average rentals per copy is usually under 50 (after which you sell them all off for super cheap and rent your remaining couple of copies another 50 times if you're lucky) you see that the studios' (or at least video distributors') share is not insignificant.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-28-2007, 03:37 PM:

Paul Gordon said "who checks anyway?"
Actually the RCMP does [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-28-2007, 03:43 PM:

quote: Paul Gordon
I'll download a film or go to the cinema before I pay $6.00 (CND) for a new release at block buster. Rip off!, and BTW Video stores can buy their DVD's where ever they like... who checks anyway?

Just as movie distributors have "checkers" who visit commercial movie theaters to make sure the right trailers are being run (among other things), they do have people who make field visits to see if any video piracy is occurring.

High profile chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video really have no way to surreptitiously buy retail DVDs and then rent them without the studios quickly getting wise to it. Small mom-and-pop chains might be more likely perpetrators of such schemes, but they would likely get found out very quickly. Management at rival stores in the same town might even turn them in to the studios.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2007, 08:51 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know what the current "rental pricing" is on DVDs currently, but it's certainly more than the $20 average we pay at the store.

I work at a store during the day where we sell CDs, DVDs and so on....and I can tell you that for a typical new release "standard" edition of a movie we pay usually around $15 to $19. Less if it's on sale. If we were a big store we'd buy case lots and get 'em even cheaper. I doubt vid-rental stores are paying any more than we do.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The video stores have to pay more for those DVDs than we do. They can't simply purchase their rental copies from Wal-Mart, Circuit City or any other retailer.

There's a video rental store in a neighboring town -- an independent -- and that's exactly what they do...they visit Costco each week and pick up the new releases cheap.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-28-2007, 10:59 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
There's a video rental store in a neighboring town -- an independent -- and that's exactly what they do...they visit Costco each week and pick up the new releases cheap.

Lots of rental outlets do that, but by then the higher priced rental release window has ended (given that they're picking the product up on sell though).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-29-2007, 09:00 PM:

Maybe in other countries there is still a rental window but I don't know of one in the U.S. Any store owner could come to me, or any other dealer and order as many copies as he wants for delivery on the national release date.