Warner Bros. Opted Out of iTunes TV Show Rentals Over Pricing, Impact on Full-Season Sales

[Bilbo63]

WB does not get it.

Clearly many of the studios just don't get it.

First, they expect us to pay more than the cost a full season DVD set to subscribe to a season from iTunes. We're accessing the content via an internet connection that WE pay for. Bandwidth that WE pay for on a system that WE paid for. The studios have zero manufacturing costs. Zero shipping costs. Zero paperwork and billing costs. All they do is provide Apple the digital data and wait for the checks to roll in. Frankly, I find that offensive. If anything a full season should be LESS not more, when buying from iTunes.

In WB's world, we'd be paying as much or more to RENT a full season, than to buy it on DVD. Greedy, greedy, greedy. THIS is exactly why people torrent music, TV shows and movies. Be fair about it and don't rape the consumer and we'll play nice.

The studios need to realize that there is plenty of FREE content on the web. Documentaries, TED talks, comedy. It may not be network programming, but very decent none the less. I'd dump my cable before my internet connection without a doubt.

At present, I am ripping my DVD collection of movies and TV shows into PLEX to access my content that way. I'll PVR the handful of cable shows that I like.

We should start a list of websites that offer decent FREE content. I know that there are lots out there, but here are a few that I like...

www.Ted.com
www.take180.com
www.atom.com

 

[rdlink]

Tivo is hardly free. It's $12.95 a month or yearly at $129. Plus 300 bucks for the basic box. So depending on how much tv someone watches, a $99 apple tv with 99 cent rentals might be a more cost effective option. Considering it will have the shows they want...

Not to mention...

Most people who have TIVO still use a satellite or cable provider. So "free" doesn't even begin to fit into that conversation. The studios are having such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the gravy train is coming to a screeching halt, and the golden goose is severely curtailing her egg laying activities. The realities of technology are pulling them, kicking and screaming into the reality of lower overall revenue. It's frankly infuriating that they refuse to accept it, and are so indignant over their loss of control here. Warner Brothers, until you succumb to the new reality, I will not watch any of your programs or movies.

 

[OllyW]

Not to mention...

Most people who have TIVO still use a satellite or cable provider. So "free" doesn't even begin to fit into that conversation. The studios are having such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the gravy train is coming to a screeching halt, and the golden goose is severely curtailing her egg laying activities. The realities of technology are pulling them, kicking and screaming into the reality of lower overall revenue. It's frankly infuriating that they refuse to accept it, and are so indignant over their loss of control here. Warner Brothers, until you succumb to the new reality, I will not watch any of your programs or movies.

Doesn't anyone sell a non-subscription PVR in the US?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Not to mention...

Most people who have TIVO still use a satellite or cable provider. So "free" doesn't even begin to fit into that conversation. The studios are having such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the gravy train is coming to a screeching halt, and the golden goose is severely curtailing her egg laying activities. The realities of technology are pulling them, kicking and screaming into the reality of lower overall revenue. It's frankly infuriating that they refuse to accept it, and are so indignant over their loss of control here. Warner Brothers, until you succumb to the new reality, I will not watch any of your programs or movies.

I think the problem with your agrument is people who have a DVR to them it is free because they would pay for cable TV either way. So the DVR is not an extra cost.

I complete understand WB look at it. Apple TV is still a nitch product and netflex is still a better option since many shows you can just stream off netflex a day after they are aired. Total cost 6 bucks a month.

 

[rdlink]

I think the problem with your agrument is people who have a DVR to them it is free because they would pay for cable TV either way. So the DVR is not an extra cost.

I complete understand WB look at it. Apple TV is still a nitch product and netflex is still a better option since many shows you can just stream off netflex a day after they are aired. Total cost 6 bucks a month.

First of all, TIVO, to which I was referring, is not free. You pay (dearly) for the box, and for the monthly service. Second, in actuality, cable and satellite DVRs are not free, either. You pay for it with a monthly rental. Or it's subsidized by the fact that you sign a 2 year commitment for subscription to the cable or satellite service. Or you pay up to $400 to upgrade to them.

Not sure what you mean by "I complete understand WB look at it." If you mean you understand their point of view, you are the type of person they hope to keep shackled into their oppressive and greedy business model from now on.

As far as Netflix is concerned, I have a Netflix account, my friend, and I have yet to see any television episode worth watching available the day after it airs.

And finally, the whole point to the rental model that Apple is trying to get the media companies to buy into would eliminate the need for cable subscriptions for a bunch of people. Probably including me. That's why the Warner Brothers of the world don't want it. They would rather you continue to buy the whole cable or satellite bundle, and pay a rather large monthly bill for the very few decent products they offer, along with all of the filler crap. Sound familiar? It should. It's what the record industry wanted you to do with CD albums before iTunes changed the paradigm.

Can you remember when you had to pay $16 for a CD just to get the one or two songs that you wanted to listen to? That's the cable/satellite TV model. Pay $100 a month for a SUPER DUPER 300 CHANNEL EXTRAVAGANZA, so you can have 12 channels of halfway (emphasis on halfway) decent programs, along with 30 shopping channels, 25 MTV clones, 15 religious channels, 35 "premium" movie channels that largely play the same crap over and over, 150 music channels, most of which are garbage, 20 news channels reporting the same thing as each other over and over, 17 flavors of ESPN, and 25 channels of really, really crappy reality shows. Oh, and did I mention that they want you to pay extra for HD?

 

[mrochester]

First of all, TIVO, to which I was referring, is not free. You pay (dearly) for the box, and for the monthly service. Second, in actuality, cable and satellite DVRs are not free, either. You pay for it with a monthly rental. Or it's subsidized by the fact that you sign a 2 year commitment for subscription to the cable or satellite service. Or you pay up to $400 to upgrade to them.

Not sure what you mean by "I complete understand WB look at it." If you mean you understand their point of view, you are the type of person they hope to keep shackled into their oppressive and greedy business model from now on.

As far as Netflix is concerned, I have a Netflix account, my friend, and I have yet to see any television episode worth watching available the day after it airs.

And finally, the whole point to the rental model that Apple is trying to get the media companies to buy into would eliminate the need for cable subscriptions for a bunch of people. Probably including me. That's why the Warner Brothers of the world don't want it. They would rather you continue to buy the whole cable or satellite bundle, and pay a rather large monthly bill for the very few decent products they offer, along with all of the filler crap. Sound familiar? It should. It's what the record industry wanted you to do with CD albums before iTunes changed the paradigm.

Can you remember when you had to pay $16 for a CD just to get the one or two songs that you wanted to listen to? That's the cable/satellite TV model. Pay $100 a month for a SUPER DUPER 300 CHANNEL EXTRAVAGANZA, so you can have 12 channels of halfway (emphasis on halfway) decent programs, along with 30 shopping channels, 25 MTV clones, 15 religious channels, 35 "premium" movie channels that largely play the same crap over and over, 150 music channels, most of which are garbage, 20 news channels reporting the same thing as each other over and over, 17 flavors of ESPN, and 25 channels of really, really crappy reality shows. Oh, and did I mention that they want you to pay extra for HD?

WB et al, just like Apple, are all out to make as much money as they possibly can; this is the nature of business. If this concept can be used to justify Apple's huge profit margins, it can also be used to justify why WB have refused to be a part of this rental scheme.

It sounds like you're getting annoyed simply because they aren't offering you the products and services you want at the price you want to pay. Might I post a quote from something you wrote on the 10th April 2010 for you to reflect on?

It is not your right as a consumer to make business decisions inside the boardroom of corporations. It is your right to vote with your pocketbook. Nothing more. If a company doesn't make the product that, in balance fits your personal needs or ideals, buy another product. There are plenty of competitors out there.

Yours was not a reasoned or intelligent reaction. It was the typical rant of a spoiled child who wants everything they want, with no compromise or consideration, and will not be denied, even if you trample the rights of others. Go buy another product, and stay the f&$* away from "protecting" my rights. Thank you.

 

[RTee]

Oh Barry

You're a knob!

In Oz we only have one main cable company, it aint cheap and the programming sux! I'd rather pay to watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it and if I like it that much I'll buy the dam season, not to mention the opportunity of discovering new shows that don't even air here.

Ripping people off has been the business model of our cable company for years, this is the antidote and Baz knows it.

 

[rdlink]

WB et al, just like Apple, are all out to make as much money as they possibly can; this is the nature of business. If this concept can be used to justify Apple's huge profit margins, it can also be used to justify why WB have refused to be a part of this rental scheme.

It sounds like you're getting annoyed simply because they aren't offering you the products and services you want at the price you want to pay. Might I post a quote from something you wrote on the 10th April 2010 for you to reflect on?

What's your point? Not a thing inconsistent between my two statements (although it's a little creepy that you find it necessary to research others' previous posts). I am not asking anyone to protect my rights or interests. I am perfectly capable of protecting them myself.

You are correct. I am annoyed. Because they want to keep the cash cow, and not acknowledge the reality that is current technology. And I do vote with my pocketbook. If you read my original post on this subject you would know that I have stated that WB will get none of my money until they bend to the will of the consumer.

As far as Apple's profit, as long as they continue to be the best source of the products I want, at a price that I consider fair for the products, I will buy them. If someone else provides as good as or better products for less money, and Apple refuses to compete they will lose my money. Funny how capitalism works, huh?

 

[longball11]

LMAO. Blu-Ray just got better.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Considering most networks allow you to watch the show on their website for free...
Granted, they get some advertising revenue out of the deal, but I can't imagine its as much as the .69 cents they'd make per rental (assuming apple's normal 30% take).

There are times where DVR's mess up, or you forget to record something. I don't know how many times I wish I could just rent the episode. Though in those rare instances I have spent $2 to buy it, but only shows I really loved. .99 I'd be more willing I guess.

The studios are just dumb though. Make revenue or don't. (Ahem, Napster anyone?)

 

[MacAddict1978]

What's your point? Not a thing inconsistent between my two statements (although it's a little creepy that you find it necessary to research others' previous posts). I am not asking anyone to protect my rights or interests. I am perfectly capable of protecting them myself.

You are correct. I am annoyed. Because they want to keep the cash cow, and not acknowledge the reality that is current technology. And I do vote with my pocketbook. If you read my original post on this subject you would know that I have stated that WB will get none of my money until they bend to the will of the consumer.

As far as Apple's profit, as long as they continue to be the best source of the products I want, at a price that I consider fair for the products, I will buy them. If someone else provides as good as or better products for less money, and Apple refuses to compete they will lose my money. Funny how capitalism works, huh?

Apple has claimed or years that the iTunes store is more of a break even deal for them. (Though I'd question that now considering all the additional revenue streams: books, rentals, movies, aps) but it does tie you to their devices and keeps you buying apple hardware.

WB is also the big hold out on any thing. I think tech companies get things because that's what they do. The entertainment industry is still run by dinosaurs. Cassettes were going to be doomsday once upon a time. I think if studios were faster to emrbace technology and not waste so many resources fighting it, they'd see better profit. The irony with WB is they were bought by a tech company (AOL) and still squandered an opportunity to be innovative.

 

[mrochester]

What's your point? Not a thing inconsistent between my two statements (although it's a little creepy that you find it necessary to research others' previous posts). I am not asking anyone to protect my rights or interests. I am perfectly capable of protecting them myself.

You are correct. I am annoyed. Because they want to keep the cash cow, and not acknowledge the reality that is current technology. And I do vote with my pocketbook. If you read my original post on this subject you would know that I have stated that WB will get none of my money until they bend to the will of the consumer.

As far as Apple's profit, as long as they continue to be the best source of the products I want, at a price that I consider fair for the products, I will buy them. If someone else provides as good as or better products for less money, and Apple refuses to compete they will lose my money. Funny how capitalism works, huh?

I think my point is that you chastised someone who was complaining about what Apple did or didn't do by saying as the consumer, they have no right to say what a company should do. But now you seem to be doing the very same thing yourself. If you want to vote with your wallet, fine, just don't bother complaining about it since you have no authority to say what products and services a company should or shouldn't offer.

 

[Mistrblank]

This kind of thinking reminds me of the record labels playing hard ball with Apple when iTunes was introduced. Apple's new model was to legally sell individual songs when the music labels demanded only full LP's because they thought it would hurt sales. Ironic don't you think...

And I think in the long run has led to more and more albums with less trash filler material. Selling one hit wonders doesn't work as well now.

 

[Mistrblank]

Well lets see on my DVR it is programmed to record every show I like if and only if it is a new episode.

It works great because I programmed it once well over a year or 2 ago and some shows are starting their 3rd season since I programmed it and guess what I never have had to go in and changed it. Hell they even moved time slots and days or the week and STILL I have not had to go in and change it.

On the rare chance that I do miss an episode I generally will torrent it and then play it on my 360. Worse I have had to do for HD part is take the file and re-encode it in a different format.

DVR works out to be a hell of a lot cheaper and I can steam any show I record to any one of 4 TVs. AT&T Uverse is great.

That's a lot of work, which for some of us, spending $.99 for convenience makes sense.

 

[markgo2k]

This is definitely becoming reminiscent of the record industries response to digital media. The problem is that the networks (like record companies) are effectively middlemen, and are afraid of being cut out of the deal.

If the actual show makers had the rights, and premium content like HBO or Sunday Ticket were available on demand, it would be easy to cut the cord.

As idiotic as WB is, these are beaver dams against the flood. If there is a future role for networks it would be as subscription aggregators (e.g. I pay $25/yr for all WB, or rent individual episodes for $.99)

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Here is another line of though. The network does not want to be controlled by Apple's lock in sytem and only have a very limited market.
They know that the renting shows would ONLY work on Apple products. Instead of working with any other system out there. Apple has been able to strong arm the record companies and the networks do not want to have to play that way. Apple is pretty bad at locking in people.

They scream they are doing this for the consummer but in doing so Apple locks you into Apple products and you have to pay a premuim for it.

 

[mrochester]

This is definitely becoming reminiscent of the record industries response to digital media. The problem is that the networks (like record companies) are effectively middlemen, and are afraid of being cut out of the deal.

If the actual show makers had the rights, and premium content like HBO or Sunday Ticket were available on demand, it would be easy to cut the cord.

As idiotic as WB is, these are beaver dams against the flood. If there is a future role for networks it would be as subscription aggregators (e.g. I pay $25/yr for all WB, or rent individual episodes for $.99)

I actually see Apple as the middlemen whose sole purpose it is to serve up the content that someone else has created, and take a cut in the process. As consumers, we'd be better off cutting out the middlemen and buying directly from the networks.

 

[derek]

Media Biz Goes Into Marketing Moron Mode Once Again

"Chief Executive Barry Meyer says Warner Bros. didn't participate in Apple Inc.'s plan to offer TV show rentals for 99 cents because the price was too low and would have hurt sales of full seasons."

Thus ignoring customer demand and inspiring further use of BitTorrent piracy. Brilliant Barry.

Marketing Moron Mentality: Customers are only as good as their money. Use any method available to manipulate them into forking over the dough.

It's customer abuse like this that's damaged the media industry. Treat customers with disrespect and they will reciprocate. Treat customers with respect and they will reciprocate. I have to wonder why Marketing Morons don't get the clue. Are they blinded by greed translating into short term gain, long term catastrophe, perhaps? Me thinks so.

 

[Nausicaa]

No your DVR is not free, its part of the $59 you pay a month for cable.

You dont understand that this is not Apple causing the problem but the networks. Apple is offering 99c rentals which to those that dont have cable or a DVR is a good value and is cheap as the studios would go.

Yup. We get it, if you already pay $100+ for cable a month, renting TV shows is a pointless endeavor.

However, for those of us who only want to watch a very specific set of shows, and thus don't pay for cable (a growing segment), it is a brilliant offer. Right now, I spend $3 for the HD version of shows which are available to buy on iTunes as they air (or I just torrent shows from premium channels like HBO and Showtime - their loss trying to get subscribers). Pretty unreasonable since, as another poster mentioned, I usually only watch an episode once, but feel obligated to hold on to all these video files simply because I paid for them. I'm also unable to burn these HD files to physical media, which means I either need a method to stream, or must rebuy the show on Blu Ray.

WB is dumb to not see this market exists. That is, non cable subscribers who want to watch a show as it airs. I'm willing to bet you'll have a far higher number of iTunes users willing to rent for $0.99 than buy at $3.00. Moreover, these customers will in turn be far more likely to buy a DVD boxset of this show at $0.99 rental vs. $3.00 rental. And now that we are able to easily stream this content to our TVs, I think this market will grow even more now that it isn't restricted to viewing on a computer monitor.

It's worth noting that Apple is currently (and has been historically) the only company trying to develop and monetize alternate methods of media distribution over electronic networks. For a media industry that has been so overwrought about piracy for the last decade and a half, it is sad to see that they are still unwilling to get on this train.

 

[mrochester]

or I just torrent shows from premium channels like HBO and Showtime - their loss trying to get subscribers

Disagreeing with the terms of service or prices is no justification for stealing the product.

WB is dumb to not see this market exists. That is, non cable subscribers who want to watch a show as it airs. I'm willing to bet you'll have a far higher number of iTunes users willing to rent for $0.99 than buy at $3.00. Moreover, these customers will in turn be far more likely to buy a DVD boxset of this show at $0.99 rental vs. $3.00 rental. And now that we are able to easily stream this content to our TVs, I think this market will grow even more now that it isn't restricted to viewing on a computer monitor.

I'm sure WB know that the market exists, but whether it is actually profitable for them is another thing entirely. If it's not profitable for them, why do you think they would go with it? You need 2 more people to rent the product to make the same amount of money as selling it to one. That's a 200% increase in uptake to make the same amount of money. Is that a realistic increase just from offering a rental option? It seems unlikely.