|
Postcards from the President
|
|
Written by Bruce Frigeri
|
|
Friday, 16 July 2010 |
Over the years those of us who work in independent film distribution have had a love hate relationship with Netflix. While they used to carry at least a few units of everything, their business model put a big hurt on Blockbuster and ultimately our bottom line. Netflix can service the entire country with 90-300 units of an indie title. They have no problem making indie film audiences wait weeks for a selection. Blockbuster, on the other hand, needed at least 1,800 units, usually more, to service the entire country. It's not hard to do the math to see where revenue has disappeared. None the less, the near guaranteed sale to Netflix on everything we released eased the pain a bit.
--Until recently, when Netflix has begun to pass on indie titles, even for streaming only. This is a terrible turn of events for independent films. Ironically, it is Blockbuster Total Access (soon to be just Block online) that is now the only champion left for independent film rental product of any real consequence.
 Our latest release, the sci fi film CLONE HUNTER, is available through Block Total Access. If you are a subscriber, or are just tired of the Netflix shuffle, check it out. The film streets August 10. If you've never been to Blockbuster Online, you'll be pleasantly surprised by how efficient their interface is. I think its one of the best kept secrets in home entertainment.
|
|
|
Postcards from the President
|
|
Written by Bruce Frigeri
|
|
Friday, 11 June 2010 |
The statement from the Time-Warner CFO that the studio was “aggressively” transitioning away from packaged media is just the latest indication that the future of electronic delivery of movies is pretty much upon us. Sales of dvds and blu ray have been falling for years. Now fueled by a recession that seems to have no end, that drop has become a plummet. Distributors of finished goods scramble to compensate for the reduced revenue per title by releasing ever more films—an approach that exhausts consumers and inevitably waters down the quality of new releases with too many mediocre films. The other trend that drives current release strategy is the obsession with cast driven product; as if “B” grade actors never make a bad film. What these trends have given us is a cluttered market full of mediocre and even bad films with very little room for innovation and creativity. The only growth area for packaged media is kiosks like Redbox. Unfortunately the wholesale price these new outlets are willing to pay is so low, and their shelf/inventory space so limited, that they don’t come close to making up for all the revenue lost in other areas of home entertainment. They do however offer the average consumer the cheapest method to legally watch a movie; albeit usually a very predictable one. Bland selection or not, this price advantage and the ongoing recession mean that these kiosks are going to be with us for some time to come, whether the studios and other big dvd distributors like them or not.
This brings us to the future that we are already living. In this distributor’s opinion, there are three things slowing down the tidal surge towards electronic delivery of home entertainment. The first of these, with the notable exception of InDemand, is the absence of any meaningful presentation strategies by the Video On Demand services. Available titles, particularly new releases, are lumped together with almost no sorting or categorizing. Such a cluttered presentation makes the need for effective searching software and hardware ever more imperative. Unfortunately, neither the software or hardware currently available to consumers is up to the task.
This situation is the second reason that v.o.d. has still not completely overwhelmed packaged media. Whereas any gamer has a wireless hand controller that can interact in very specific ways with the game console and the television, most v.o.d. consumers only have their rather archaic remote to use as an interface. How long will it be before the cable companies introduce a wireless mouse-type device that will solve this problem? I predict such devices will be available by the end of this year. On the other hand it is hard to believe that such devices aren’t already in use.
|
|
Read more... [The Future Of Electronic Delivery Is Now]
|
|
|
Postcards from the President
|
|
Written by Bruce Frigeri
|
|
Monday, 17 May 2010 |
 The demise of Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery has to be one of the great slow motion collapses in business history. Before their merger in 2005, the two companies were the number two and number three rental chains in the country. I remember the bafflement that came over me when I heard the news of the merger. Why would Hollywood agree to such a thing? Well, it was money of course that drove the deal, just as it was money or the lack thereof, that drove the new entity into oblivion five years later. The market forces that would contribute so mightily to their demise were already storm clouds on the horizon when Movie Gallery foolishly purchased Hollywood Video, primarily with debt and stock swaps. It was this debt, coupled with an incredible lack of foresight on the part of Movie Gallery management, which led to the new entity’s inability to adapt to the changing distribution landscape.
As a dvd distributor and indie film fan, I have always had a warm spot in my heart for the old Hollywood Video. They were a well run company with smart people making decisions in a timely manner. Hollywood was much more likely to give a lesser known title a chance than Blockbuster. In fact, we had two substantial indie hits; Bad Guy and The River, which Blockbuster refused to carry at all. Movie Gallery was always a much less sophisticated operation, relying on deep copy depth of mainstream Hollywood titles to make a profit. To their credit, Movie Gallery realized that the Hollywood acquisition people knew more about the rental business than they did and deferred to their judgement on almost all independent and foreign language titles. Unfortunately Movie Galley did next to nothing to adapt to the new distribution models that were posing such a threat to their core rental business. Whether it was due to the huge debt load incurred as a result of the Hollywood Video acquisition or just plain lack of imagination, Movie Gallery found itself whipsawed by both Netflix and various video on demand services. If consumers wanted a huge selection of films at an affordable price they went with Netflix. If it was convenience that mattered they could watch most mainstream titles with a few clicks of their tv remote—while the pop corn popped in their microwave |
|
Read more... [Not A Hollywood Ending]
|
|
|
Postcards from the President
|
|
Written by Bruce Frigeri
|
|
Thursday, 25 March 2010 |
 The award winners from the South By Southwest Film Festival were announced today. Reading about them made me wistful. SXSW has always been my favorite N. American film festival and I've skipped it now two years in a row. The reason I chose to stay home again is quite simple. In spite of my affinity for all things Austin, TX, there is simply no business to be had for the vast majority of films that screen at South By Southwest.
Of course every year is different than the last, and with delivery systems evolving on a weekly basis, perhaps there will soon come a time where it will once again be at least modestly profitable for distributors to release good quality American independent films.
As has been discussed here many times over the past couple of years, the forces working against independent films are many and formidable. The landscape is littered with well executed, creative work that either drowned some brave distributor in red ink, or simply withered on its creators' hard drives, ignored by an unforgiving marketplace.
Perhaps variations of the new browsing software that has caused so much controversy on Netflix will enable good independent films to be discovered in the VOD and On Line universe. Or maybe an enterprising producer or creative distributor will figure out how to economically negotiate the current distribution landscape and find the audience that is surely still out there for these films. Sooner or later it is going to happen.
In the meantime one can only hope that the good films at SXSW, and there are always good films there that don't win any awards, get a chance to be seen. They represent a creative energy that is too often missing from mainstream releases. More importantly, they remind us of just how diverse and rich our country's creative life still remains. The film business, and our culture, are better off when these films have a place in it... |
|
|
Postcards from the President
|
|
Written by Bruce Frigeri
|
|
Thursday, 18 February 2010 |
I was comparing notes with an old friend the other day about our respective cable packages, particularly the pay cable channels we supplement our basic plans with. We both bemoaned the limited selection and quality of most of the titles offered, whether they came from Showtime, Encore or HBO. I immediately pointed out that this is where Video On Demand could add great value to consumers. But my friend was much more skeptical. He regretted the loss of what many of us in distribution had come to loath; the gatekeeper. Where the gatekeeper (read programmer) usually frustrates distributors with their corporate priorities and lack of imagination, s/he had proven to be a valuable asset to my friend’s movie watching on tv. He pointed out that unlike me, he doesn’t have time to familiarize himself with every month’s release slate of home entertainment titles. He relies on the gatekeeper to make reasonable choices so that he can be engaged, enlightened and entertained. Now remember that we both agreed that movie channel programming has been very poor lately. But instead of abandoning this delivery model, my friend just wishes that they’d present better films. He is an accountant by trade and quickly pointed out that for his $15 (or less) monthly subscription fee, I could at best order four films from Video On Demand. I countered that one of the reasons the movie channels are playing so many mediocre and older titles is because the studios are holding their product back in hopes of monetizing it better through Video On Demand. This leaves the pay channels caught in a tough bind. They can either overpay for first run studio titles of all shapes and sizes and hope that the numbers add up at the end of the year or buy only a few of the highest profile titles and use them as barkers for their brand and supplement with cheaper fare and more original programming (what they are doing). So far the creativity and energy of the original programming has enabled the pay channels to at least tread water in a very tough environment.
Unfortunately for them though, Netflix streaming provides the biggest threat to their business models. For as little as $10 a month (and either a Roku box or an Xbox live subscription) consumers can avail themselves of pretty much the entire catalog of films offered by the rental giant. Now my friend is not exactly in the gamer demographic and he can’t even spell Roku let alone describe what it does, but—it won’t be long before the selection and affordability of high profile streaming services; ie Netflix and Blockbuster, win him over. Which brings us back to those gatekeepers. My friend might hold out in the hope of getting more value from his pay channel package. But will the average consumer be willing to take on the added responsibility of browsing and sorting for most of the films they watch at home? I believe that answer will be a qualified but ever growing chorus of yes, especially when money is tight. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 9 of 76 |
SUBSCRIBE to the INDIE FILM KIOSK MINI CATALOG for valuable news, coupons and discounts! Get the pdf catalog downloaded to your computer and into your Itunes or other xml/rss feed reader:
subscribe with Itunes!
Black Swan - Trailer