from the can't-compete,-huh? dept
RickMan points us to the latest such example, written for the Hollywood Reporter by Gregory Marcus, the CEO of Marcus Theatres, where he runs through a whole series of fallacies in trying to convince Hollywood not to keep shortening film windows. Let's pick through a few:
I just saw Johnny Depp at the grocery store.First of all, it's not devalued. Price and value are not the same thing, and it's economically wrong to claim they are the same. Furthermore, it's not "devaluing" something if the market is pricing it more efficiently and accurately. Just because one part of the market artificially inflated the price through exclusionary and anti-competitive practices, don't blame the market for more accurately pricing things.
Dressed as the Mad Hatter, he was in the Redbox machine available for $1. All I could think was what a shame it was that this wonderful movie was being so terribly devalued.
Windowed release patterns are brilliant. Release a movie to different outlets over time so it can be sold to the same person multiple times. First see it in the theater, then buy or rent it, then catch it on cable or TV. Shorten the window and risk losing the ability to sell the product multiple times.When trying to convince the world that your system is better, it helps not to flat out admit that the system you like is the one that forces people to pay multiple times for the same thing. The reason windows are collapsing is because more and more people realize such windows are ridiculous and make little sense. And when that happens, they start routing around the legal ways of getting the content, and get it through unauthorized channels.
The real problem here, of course, is that Marcus is either too afraid or too confused to know how to compete. Even if all movies were released -- in an authorized fashion -- for free, I would bet that a smart theater owner could thrive. That's because a smart theater owner would recognize that people go out to the movies for the overall social experience. The better the experience, the better you can do. Everyone can always eat dinner for less money at home, but they go out to eat at restaurants for the experience and the ambiance and the fact that others do the work and take care of the details. The same is true for movies as well. But Marcus, here, is suggesting that his theaters are run so poorly that no one would want to come. That seems to be a problem for the board of directors of Marcus Theaters in reviewing the guy who is in charge of their strategy. It's got nothing to do with release windows.
Please don't say, "We need to give the consumer what he wants," because the historical implication was, "or your competitor will provide it," not "or the customer will steal it." The proper response cannot be to cede to the thieves' demands and earn less along the way.If you don't realize that file sharing sites are competitors, you're never going to be able to adapt.
If I were the studio execs, I would focus on catching and punishing thieves and look for less destructive opportunities to grow my business.Yeah, because so far, that's only served to draw more attention to file sharing and increase the rate at which it's done.
I'm sure it sucks to be in Marcus' position, where the old artificial scarcity he milked for profits is shrinking ever so slightly. I'm sure it must be tough to have to adapt and give people more reasons to actually come out to the theater. But his arguments make no sense for anyone other than himself. Shortening windows (or getting rid of them completely) provides more benefits to the consumers, and it's a move that the studios should have done long ago. It gives them more bang for the buck in terms of their marketing efforts, and it better segments the market. That theaters are unwilling to adapt to compete in a changing market is a problem for those theater owners alone.