I'm confused. On my regular morning walk through Victoria station I keep seeing posters that advertise new movies with the strangest of boasts: Only in cinemas.
I'm confused because I would have thought that the marketing teams at MGM and Lucasfilm would be keen to gloss over this obvious product shortcoming. I'm sure they must have made the case for their
customers. I'm sure that they must have made the point that the product would be considerably enhanced if it was available everywhere. That some of their customers might not want to go to a cinema and heck it doesn't cost much to release it on DVD or over the internet at the same time.
But no, this is not how it works in the movie industry. They have a formula you see. One honed over years of research that tells them (or so they think) how to squeeze every last drop out of every movie that they release. First you release at the cinema, then later on DVD, then VOD, then TV. It is a model (like most old school media business models) that is designed to ensure that customers pay the highest possible price per item of content consumed (in this case a movie) through inconvenience. And this formula is so ingrained in movie-land, that the marketing folks actually think that the inconvenience is actually a selling point.
Sadly, like most old school media companies the movie studios are trying to cling on to something that made sense in the 1980s but today is just ridiculous. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the formula is actively hurting both customers viewing experience and movie studios' profits.
1. 'Only in cinemas' means that cinemas do not compete for your business on the basis of the quality of their product. It creates a local monopoly. If you want to see the film, and you want to see it now, then your going to the cinema. If you want to go to the cinema you probably have 1 or maybe 2 theatre's that are close enough to where you want to be to get your business. This is why cinemas are expensive and universally poor. Imagine if cinemas were competing with a simultaneous Internet, DVD and VOD release. They'd have to sell you on the experience. Maybe they'd have lovely big arm chairs, maybe they'd have amazing sound and visuals, maybe they'd sell beer. One thing is for sure, they'd be a lot less complacent.
2. All those customers that want to see the movie now (and are prepared to pay a premium to do so), but don't have the time to get out to a cinema (I'm a new dad - this is me!) have to wait 6 months for their fix. Basically this means that I see far fewer films than I would otherwise and it relegates DVD rental, VOD and Internet to some sort of bargain basement, entertainment-of-last choice. I really wanted to see The Day the Earth Stood Still (I know it was rubbish) but I didn't because I couldn't find the time to go out, and now, I probably never will (or will wait for TV) because seeing it was mainly about the hype!
These two customer complaints mean that movie industry is missing out. The cinemas are missing out on creating a real connection with their customers. On becoming the place that I have to go to see a new movie. And the studios are missing out on massive untapped demand. There are a lot of millions to be made here.
I've had this rant in my head for a long time. It started out with hard back books - I want the book now, I don't mind paying a premium, I don't want to take a hard back on the tube; why are you forcing me to wait a year to read your book, and why are you forcing me to pay a cut down price for that... But I think the movies are a better example. Primarily because they seem so proud of their model, so focussed on a meaningless metric optimized through inconvenience.
The first studio to opt for simultaneous multi-channel distribution of all its films is going to make a fortune. I bet it's not one of the current crop.