Beware illegal downloaders: Data is being collected on you to crack down on piracy in

[Flash Walken]

Movies are still competing with the same form of entertainment they've always competed against: other Movies.

[zamler]

So you don't think your entertainment dollar has more choices versus when Gone With the Wind was in theaters?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by zamler

So you don't think your entertainment dollar has more choices versus when Gone With the Wind was in theaters?

Sure, there are different ways I can spend my money on entertainment.

However, it's tough to find different ways to sit on my butt and watch a massive theatrical production, especially at that price point.

The Symphony and theatre are, in vancouver anyway, dead or dying mediums. Most concert productions are the equivalent cost of 5-10 movies, and sports doesn't compete in anyway with film for entertainment dollars.

In terms of the specific things that compete with movies, I'd say there is probably less.

There used to be more movies competing when independent film was bigger, but since that has mostly collapsed, those people have gone into television.

I guess I watch TV more now than I used to because the TV shows I had at my disposal are better now than they were, are less expensive than a movie, and I can eat and drink during them without having to put pants on.

Other than that, movies are still movies, and the biggest, most badass home-theatre setup is still only ever on par with the theatre going experience, and there's a huge associated investment in that.

Even the guys on here with the tricked out media rooms etc I bet go see more movies than the people without the tricked out rooms on average, simply because they're that type of person.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by polak

ahem...

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not a single top 10 entry. Avatar is #14.

Holy smokes Gone With The Wind did 50% more than the US GDP in 1939. Amazing!

[zamler]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Holy smokes Gone With The Wind did 50% more than the US GDP in 1939. Amazing!

Even more amazing when you consider there were more similar forms of entertainment back then, like television for example.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

[/B]
Don't assume for a second that companies are always smart.

This isn't 2001.
No company would get to the level of HBO if their leadership couldn't read the very obvious writing on the wall. Blockbuster and HBO are two different beasts. Blockbuster would have had to overhaul their entire business to compete with Netflix and they chose to risk it and stay with the status quo. No doubt a stupid decision but its totally different then a network deciding to keep selling their product (tv shows) to cable companies. It's those cable companies that are the blockbuster in your analogy.

And again, if HBO was as clueless as you seem to think, then HBO GO wouldn't exist.

[polak]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Holy smokes Gone With The Wind did 50% more than the US GDP in 1939. Amazing!

Do you not understand how inflation works?
Some of those movies have been re-released a few times but the point is still valid.

Originally Posted by zamler

Even more amazing when you consider there were more similar forms of entertainment back then, like television for example.

Congrats. That is one movie.
8 of the top 10 were out after 1950.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

As long as we both agree that what they are doing is not right. I just don't like the attitude that some display stating the HBO deserves to have their work stolen (is copyright infringed a thing?)
My guess is that they are hesitant to open their shows up to new sources because they have a pretty cozy relationship with the cable companies. They don't have to do any advertising as the cable cos push it pretty hard. If they cut out the cable companies then they might find that they have a harder time negotiating the same rate next time or see a drop in advertising.

HBO is owned by Time Warner, which explains their 'relationship' with the cable companies.

I agree that it is wrong. I just don't think HBO should act so surprised and hurt(not that they are) that their shows are being pirated, when they really don't offer access to all markets.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by psyang

If HBO is getting around $8/subscriber and people are willing to pay $12/subscriber (I won't dispute the figure, though people do often exaggerate when they want something and do not have to back up their claim), there are two other factors to consider:

1) cost of infrastructure for distribution. The cable companies shoulder that burden right now.
2) cost of marketing/sales. Again, the cable companies shoulder that. Even more, they may bundle HBO with other channels, or they may give HBO free for 6 months, hoping that the subscriber keeps paying when the free period ends (a likely scenario) - all at no risk to HBO.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there is a lot of risk there. I think HBO is looking hard at the numbers - it just isn't in their best interest now to jump to that model.

I agree, and the potential number of subscribers that would sign up for the 'online' model are probably not enough for HBO to fully transfer everything away from 'cable', and onto the online pay for demand model.

But of course they don't really have too. They can have a two-tier model where they still offer the cable subscription, which is rather successful even if it is very much a money grab, and perhaps offer their shows through Hulu, Netflix or iTunes, or MAYBE even setup streaming on YouTube. That way the infrastructure would be in place to offer high definition video to the masses, and they would only need to focus on marketing, which I don't think is such a big deal considering the brand awareness people have of HBO content.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Azure

But of course they don't really have too. They can have a two-tier model where they still offer the cable subscription, which is rather successful even if it is very much a money grab, and perhaps offer their shows through Hulu, Netflix or iTunes, or MAYBE even setup streaming on YouTube. That way the infrastructure would be in place to offer high definition video to the masses, and they would only need to focus on marketing, which I don't think is such a big deal considering the brand awareness people have of HBO content.

The thing is, the shows that everyone wants them to offer online, are the main reason they would subscribe to HBO.

HBO GO probably doesn't earn enough to warrant selling as a stand alone. They make more forcing people to order everything that comes with it despite losing out on those that say "no" and decide to pirate

[nik-]

I would subscribe to HBO if I didn't have to buy the ####ty Movie stations with it, causing the package to be $15.

Until they offer it alone for a reasonable price ... ahoy matey!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by polak

This isn't 2001.
No company would get to the level of HBO if their leadership couldn't read the very obvious writing on the wall. Blockbuster and HBO are two different beasts. Blockbuster would have had to overhaul their entire business to compete with Netflix and they chose to risk it and stay with the status quo. No doubt a stupid decision but its totally different then a network deciding to keep selling their product (tv shows) to cable companies. It's those cable companies that are the blockbuster in your analogy.

And again, if HBO was as clueless as you seem to think, then HBO GO wouldn't exist.

HBO GO is used by 1% of the subscribers to HBO.

Note that you do have to subscribe to the HBO cable channel in order to be able to subscribe to and access HBO GO.

And we're not talking about Blockbuster and HBO. We're talking about two companies trying to deliver the same thing. Blockbuster and Netflix. Blockbuster, and a lot of other big players in the media world didn't figure that there was any possible way that a streaming movie service that allowed viewers to subscribe for a low monthly cost would ever be successful. Now Netflix is a billion dollar company and Blockbuster is bankrupt.

The same 'shift' applies to the music industry as well. Spotify, Pandora and Rdio have completely revolutionized the music industry to the point where 'album' sales are down. Why didn't the labels start up their own streaming music service? Why did a private company have to come in and disrupt a rather lucrative industry?

And I left iTunes out for a reason. And Amazon. And Google Music.

It is extremely naive to think that big billion dollar companies cannot be stuck in their ways. Disruption has happened in every industry, and will continue to happen, and my guess is 5-10 years from now, cable TV will be a dying industry, and streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc, etc will control over 75% of the marketshare.

Companies that cannot innovate and keep up with the changing 'media' world are going to die the same death that Blockbuster does, while companies like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Google, Apple and others are going to keep growing like crazy because they clearly see where the future is going.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by polak

Do you not understand how inflation works?
Some of those movies have been re-released a few times but the point is still valid.

Do you not understand how sarcasm works?

I'm glad the re-releases work to your point as well.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by polak

The thing is, the shows that everyone wants them to offer online, are the main reason they would subscribe to HBO.

HBO GO probably doesn't earn enough to warrant selling as a stand alone. They make more forcing people to order everything that comes with it despite losing out on those that say "no" and decide to pirate

I think the point is that more and more people are cutting cable and subscribing to other methods to watch 'TV.' If HBO cannot change their business model to take advantage of those 'cable cutters', 5 years from now their subscriber base will have stagnated, and piracy of HBO shows will be even higher than they are now.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Azure

Companies that cannot innovate and keep up with the changing 'media' world are going to die the same death that Blockbuster does, while companies like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Google, Apple and others are going to keep growing like crazy because they clearly see where the future is going.

I agree with that. I said it in my post.

What I don't agree with is the dismay that some people seem to have with the fact that this type of service isn't in place yet.

I'm thinking you won't see this in place until the baby boomers bite it and Gen Y takes over. 10-20 years.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by psyang

HBO may see an iTunes model (for example) as destroying their revenue stream from the cable companies.

Cable will be dead within 5 years, maximum 10. Before too long we will have total a la carte programming available for delivery to our TV's, computers, tablets and phones.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by polak

I agree with that. I said it in my post.

What I don't agree with is the dismay that some people seem to have with the fact that this type of service isn't in place yet.

I'm thinking you won't see this in place until the baby boomers bite it and Gen Y takes over. 10-20 years.

Wow, big surprise that people are dismayed that they have no way to access HBO content.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by polak

It's really, really, simple guys.

If there was a way to make enough money to keep the same quality of programming and the same level of profit in a pay-per-use format, they would do it.

Do you guys really think you stumbled upon some great idea that the networks haven't found yet?

Actually its not that simple. As someone mentioned HBO is owned by Time Warner which owns a bunch of channels. So HBO cannot independently switch to an on demand model since it is in bed with a host of other channels and networks which have a vested interest in the current structure of things.

It isn't simple or easy for the world's largest media conglomerate to suddenly completely shift business models even if it does make sense. Perfect decisions are not always made in business and if giant cable companies and media conglomerates are too slow to react they may take a hit in the next decade or two as consumers may migrate from cable to on demand services.

I guess we'll see.

[Tinordi]

Time Warner is a huge cable company.

[skunt]

Originally Posted by polak

ahem...

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not a single top 10 entry. Avatar is #14.

Out of the 200 movies on the list:
-12 were released in the 10's (on pace for 60)
-52 in the 00s
-35 in the 90s
-30 in the 80s
-28 in the 70s
-21 in the 60s
-12 in the 50s
-7 in the 40s
-2 in the 30s
-1 in the 20s