Blockbuster Vs Warner

Garrett

Moderator
I saw on breakfast this morning that Blockbuster is having trouble with Warner, they apparently are increasing there charge for there disc to them, and with them releasing the DVD for sale at the same time it is not a good deal for them. It was reported that they would not be stocking Warner’s Oceans 11, in protest. Blockbuster is owned by Viacorp.
 
S

StJonno

Guest
Blocbuster havent been renting WB dvd's for a while, Training day was the first they didnt stock, apparently WB want to continue to charge the rental price (about 3 times retail price) to all rental outlets, whilst selling it from the same day, the problem blockbuster say is they are loosing the exclusivity of rental for the standard time before release, you can see thier point
 

wilber

Active Member

Garrett

Moderator
I too see Blockbusters point, and though I hardly rent any DVD’s I would hate to see them go bust. How many times have we all had a lads night in and gone down there to get a film me haven’t caught at the pictures or haven’t bought. This is also a good time to check a film out before buying.

Also when are Warner’s going to get rid of the snappers?
 

Gary D

Distinguished Member
the row is not just limited to blockbuster, its the whole video industry, all the major chains are boycotting warner at the moment, although i hear rumours that Choices have caved in. the row is over rental and retail pricing and the fact that warners have told the major chains that they cannot sell rental stock as ex-rentals.

Gary
 

James45

Standard Member
I'd tell Warner where to go... but you don't really argue with a company that big. Mind you didn't their share price crash recently?!
 

kelvin

Active Member
the row is over rental and retail pricing

Warner have not only increased the price of the "rental" versions of certain films, but they are also preventing rental outlets from buying the retail one and renting it out (thus making more profit) through the introduction of a "sticker system" on the cases. If you look at all Warner releases since Training Day you'll notice that they have a yellow box on the back stating that the product is "NOT FOR RENTAL". Similarly, rental versions have a yellow box saying "NOT FOR RETAIL". There is a "window" for outlets during which they must not sell the "Rental Version" - if caught they are liable to have their stocking rights for Warner titles removed...

Effectively, Warner wanted to cut down on the number of dealers who were buying the far cheaper, retail versions of films on titles which had simultaneous rental/retail release dates to make more money whilst renting - It doesn't seem like dealers have been too happy with Warner's new strategy so far!!

Kelvin. :D

btw - I think I've remembered it all right but if not somebody jump in and correct me!!!
 

neilneil

Active Member
So, apart from a coloured sticker, what's the difference between the rental and retail version. I can understand their upset if blockbusters et al have to pay £100+ for somthing that is exactly the same as what the public are buying for £18


-Neil
 
R

RichMercer

Guest
Originally posted by Neil Sumner
So, apart from a coloured sticker, what's the difference between the rental and retail version. I can understand their upset if blockbusters et al have to pay £100+ for somthing that is exactly the same as what the public are buying for £18

Not sure about too many Warner films but Fox especially are giving you the film and nothing else. A great example of this is 'From Hell'. I rented it the other night and like a few other Fox films I've rented, it has a standard Fox logo type background with a small logo for the film. It has 0 features and it looks like they spent 0 time on it.

Rich

P.S. Is Time Machine Warner 'cos I wanted to rent that instead at blockbuster but they didn't have it (even for sale!)?
 

PoochJD

Distinguished Member
HI,

Basically, Warner's can go screw themselves, as far as I'm concerned! Trying to get even more money out of video rental stores, by charging say £60 or £70 per rental DVD, when any member of the public could go out and buy the same film, for less than £20, and you can kind of see why almost every video rental company has decided to stand firm against Warners!

It's shocking to think that a huge firm like Warner's want it all, and want it their way, or the highway! Not to mention them trying to ban rental stores from selling off ex-rental copies of Warner movies! :mad:

Should be interesting to see if Warners cave in, when the eventual DVD rental AND/OR retail release comes around for "Harry Potter 2".

Personally, I'm with the video rental stores on this one! I hope Warner's see their profits and share prices plummet!

Pooch

P.S. Yes, "The Time Machine" is a Warner Bros release, as is "Training Day", "We Were Soldiers", as are "Babylon 5" and the "V" sci-fi releases!
 
J

jammy

Guest
Yes Blockbuster are definitely the small company fighting the system here.
Poor them. The problem that Warner have with them is that they rent the film and then sell it. If they rent a film a couple of times and then sell it they've made a lot of money on a single disc. I'm glad Blockbuster are getting shafted, they suck. This will encourage people to go back to local dealers who won't charge £4 a night for a film (that's been scratched to buggery). On the subject of which, when Blockbuster started charging that amount they're justification was you could keep the film for several nights. Well that soon changed but the charge certainly ****ing didn't. AND independent rental shops don't stock 50 million copies of Oceans 11 and 1 copy of Brotherhood of The Wolf.

Rant over.
 

pete18

Active Member
it was the same in my shop, the company suppling us had the same problem with warner, but now have sorted things out between them, so the only title we missed was Training Day the first title affected, I agree Blockbuster are way too expensive for rentals. We only charge 99p for top titles and new release monday to thurdays and £2 Friday-Sunday.

But I also agree that warner should not bring out retail and rental videos and the same time and when they only charge £10 for a retail version and around £65 for a rental. same with the dvd's.

from pete
 

CWB

Standard Member
The reason that the distributors charge rental outlets more for each DVD is that they are buying a licence to rent the things out.

A normal retail DVD does not come with a licence to rent out, as is made clear in the copyright screens.

So if a rental outlet uses normal retail DVDs for rental purposes they are operating outside their licence.
 

GrahamC

Active Member
Hi all,

Do not forget that Blockbuster is more concerned with protecting the rental window more than anything else, they want exclusivity and not choice. This is how I see Blockbusters ideal world. Buy a rental copy of a film for £10.00, charge £4.00 a night rental then sell as ex-rental for £9.99, all with an 8 week window so those that want the film can spin. At least Warner put the effort into making the film and only want part of Blockbusters action while giving me what I want a chance to buy OR rent.
 

MartinImber

Active Member
Blockbusters want the Rental Retail gap - DVD producers don't because buyers will only go and get the R1 or R4 instead!
 

kelvin

Active Member
Do not forget that Blockbuster is more concerned with protecting the rental window more than anything else, they want exclusivity and not choice. This is how I see Blockbusters ideal world. Buy a rental copy of a film for £10.00, charge £4.00 a night rental then sell as ex-rental for £9.99, all with an 8 week window so those that want the film can spin. At least Warner put the effort into making the film and only want part of Blockbusters action while giving me what I want a chance to buy OR rent.

Totally agree with you. Why should Warner sit back and watch rental outlets like Blockbuster make obscene amounts of profit? I think it's understandable that they've decided to be a bit more agressive with their pricing strategy - they're out to make money aswell - the entertainment industry isn't all about making people happy!! As far as I'm concerned, as long as it doesn't result in increased prices for consumers, they can do what they like!

Kelvin :D
 

Desticado

Active Member
Originally posted by jammy
Yes Blockbuster are definitely the small company fighting the system here.

erm.. Blockbuster are owned by VIACOM... not such a small company
 

PoochJD

Distinguished Member
Hi Again,

For me, it shouldn't be about making more money for Warners, because Warner's doing what they are doing right now, basically shafts all the small independent rental companies.

Firms like Blockbuster won't suffer, but the local independent rental shops suffer big time, because they are then forced to either co-operate with Warner's annoying new idea, or not stock Warner DVD's.

I don't think rental stores object so much to the same-day rental and retail release, but at the fact they have to pay so much for a rental copy,when Joe or Jane Public can buy a copy for a third of the price!

And anyway, doesn't it cost Warner's more money to have to make a rental-only DVD AND a retail-only DVD? Surely, it would make more sense to just release one version, which can be rented or purchased, but charge video rental companies say £30 to buy a copy to rent, rather than the £60 to £70 currently being requested!

Pooch
 

kelvin

Active Member
I don't think rental stores object so much to the same-day rental and retail release, but at the fact they have to pay so much for a rental copy,when Joe or Jane Public can buy a copy for a third of the price!

Comparing what consumers pay for a retail copy with what rental companies pay for their rental copies is (IMHO) ridiculous...

"Joe Public" doesn't go off and make money from his copy. If a rental outlet like Blockbuster is charging £4 per night for having a film, thats nearly £60 in just 2 weeks!! When you consider the fact that most rental releases will be on the shelves for at least twice that I think it's fair for rental outlets to pay more initially for the product.

Kelvin.
 

pete18

Active Member
it's really only Blockbuster that charge way to much for a rental,
since Blockbuster have been around smaller private video shops have had to increase their rental charges to make a living. It is mainly only the Convenience store owners like myself that can afford to charge cheaper video rentals because we have revenue from other products, where as video stores don't, that is why Blockbuster have introduced off-licence selection in some of their stores to try out..


from pete
 
S

stranger

Guest
how can anyone support warner -they increase the price of their dvds yet continue to use the dreaded snapper case.

I have no time for blockbuster either apart from them helping to start the market off by renting out dvd players in the early days.
 

kelvin

Active Member
how can anyone support warner -they increase the price of their dvds yet continue to use the dreaded snapper case.

lol :D - glad I'm not the only one that *hates* those damn cases!!!!!! Why!!!!!
 

Nobber22

Well-known Member
Originally posted by pete18

that is why Blockbuster have introduced off-licence selection in some of their stores to try out..

Which stores!!!!:confused: Do you mean you can buy booze in them too? My local BBusters only sells popcorn, ice-cream and sodas:( I'd love to get a nice cabernet with my disks:)
 
S

StJonno

Guest
My local BB is doing a top 20 DVD release plus 4 bottles of stella (or bottle of wine) for £5.99
 

The latest video from AVForums

Oculus Quest 2 VR headset + Rotel A14 MkII Amp Reviews & Best of the Month
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Samsung QD-OLED TVs primed for 2022 launch?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky to add NBCUniversal's Peacock service
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bang & Olufsen announces Beoplay EQ TWS earphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 28th July 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Sky drops Sky One brand and introduces Showcase and Max
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom