Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Little Red(box) Riding Hood

Redbox, the in-store kiosk movie rental company has been blazing the news recently. Hollywood studios seem to hate Redbox or love it.
  • Redbox is suing Universal studios (click here) and Fox (click here) for their attempts to instruct distributors not to supply Redbox for 30-45 days after a DVD is released.
  • Meanwhile Sony (click here), Lionsgate (click here) and Paramount (click here) have signed multi-year contracts estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, to get a share of the Redbox shelf and to ensure that used DVDs are not sold by Redbox

Its surprising to see Hollywood content owners vary so widely in their approach.
So I ask myself: Why are studios approaching this so differently? What is the right position a studio can take on this issue?

Redbox is taking revenue away from DVD sales for studios by offering daily rentals at $1. DVD sales are down 16% for the first half of the year according to Video Business Magazine (click here) whereas all other segments are growing. DVD sales account for more than 50% of all sales and rental revenue for the studios. Meanwhile Redbox quarterly revenues have grown to $189 MM (click here) and are doubling on an annual basis.

The real issue (other than rentals cannibalizing DVD sales) is that Redbox sells used DVDs at $7, often within a few weeks of the DVD being released. This has made price-sensitive customers buy recently-released used DVDs rather than shell out four times that amount for a new DVD. Electronics retailers like Best Buy are venturing into selling used DVDs and kiosk rentals (click here).

So Hollywood studios would like to limit the 'under-priced' sales of used DVDs and restrict the time when these are available to customers -- to be able to 'monetize' the time value of recently released content.

Sony seems to have played its cards well by getting a higher than representative share of the Redbox shelf and ensuring that its used DVDs are put out of circulation.

I personally think that Redbox can still rent Universal and Fox DVDs by sourcing them at retail prices and renting them at $2 instead of $1 (Note: this is not a legally informed opinion. Do not use this to make investment decisions) and selling used DVDs at higher prices. Consumers would still be attracted to the proposition.

Eventually though, I think the industry will be well-served if Universal and Fox can settle with Redbox out of court... and everyone can get back to the business of (profitably) providing compelling content to customers at the right-price in the right time window.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Turning around a newspaper

Apologies for not writing for so long...I had switched from the practice of writing a blog article to tweeting (or Re-tweeting) my thoughts in 140 characters. I am back now to the longer form of expression.

I had blogged a few months back(click here) saying that newspapers should examine putting a value on content.

I read a Newsweek article today (click here) that the Newport Daily in Rhode Island has started charging $345 for annual online subscription. The article also talks about the positive impact that this has had on print subscription cancelations. The newspaper is now planning to run its online division with a profit objective. Wow! Kudos to them for experimenting with pricing rather than sticking to the convention.

I am convinced more than ever that newspapers should consider charging for online content especially if:
  • the content is local and no other publication would cover it (e.g. Newport Daily)
  • the content is specialized and the publication is a must-read for a reader segment (e.g., Wall Street journal, Barron's, etc)