• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

DVD Boxed sets - TV on Demand?

E

ElScorcho

Regular
When looking at the bestselling DVDs, I've noticed that a great deal of them are either boxed-sets or entire seasons of a television show as opposed to just movies. And sometimes, the movies fare a lot better on DVD than they did in theatrical release.

This says two things -
1 - People would invest money in a movie worth watching twice rather than seeing it in the theatre twice.
2 - People would invest money in a television show they like.

It has been a known fact in Hollowood since the advent of the VCR that some movies are destined to go "straight to video".

But could the same be said for a TV show? Judging by the numbers, there's money to be made, especially in shows with cult followings such as Star Trek, The X Files, Farscape and our own Babylon 5. But there's also shows like The Simpsons, Friends and The Sopranos that have also fared well on DVD. It would seem that people like being able to watch their favourite shows whenever they want without the "ad" nauseum.

This is a trend I would like to see taken to the next level. Instead of networks deciding what we want to see, the viewers should be allowed to make the choice. Studios could make pilot episodes of potential series and show them to the public themselves via the internet. If enough of the public would commit to purchasing a season of a show, then it would go into production and the viewers would receive the DVDs. If enough money could be generated with this principle, the need for advertising would also be diminished, and so there would be one less evil mucking up production.

But I imagine this will never happen while there's money to be made with cable, satellite and TiVo. Who knows about the future, though...
 
Lets take one example....

One season of B5 is 22*0.8mil = 17.6mil $
How the hell you manage to profit it only with DVD sales?
 
I could be wrong, but I don't think that "only DVD sales" was what was being proposed.

My interpretation was that the proposal was to replace the first run network broadcasts in the current model with a pay-per-view system. The studios could still make supplement that first run revenue with rerun syndication to commercial stations and DVD sales.

The problem as I see it would be attracting enough viewers to check out a pay-per-view show. The marketing costs would be much higher than they are now (where currently I don't think there is much of a marketing budget for most shows, from the studio end). It is also unclear how the financing of the distributors would work. Would the studios rent the band width from the cable or satellite companies? Or would the distributors take part of the risk / reward by taking a percentage of the pay-per-view revenues? Or would the viewers still be paying a subscrition to the cable or satellite company like they do now, in addition to all of the extra pay-per-view costs?

I think this would probably push things further in the current direction of cheaper-to-produce programming becoming more prevalent.
 
I agree with you PillowRock and that was also my main point with DVDs. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
There are some movies that go directly to DVD. For instance Sniper 2 with Tom Beringer will be coming out soon and the Steven Seagal flick Ticker also went straight to DVD.

Paul
 
I could be wrong, but I don't think that "only DVD sales" was what was being proposed.
Click to expand...

That is, in fact, what I'm suggesting. A programme or series of programmes to be released in DVD format (or comparable media), but not televised. That way consumers would be directly supporting their programmes instead of supporting their advertisers (which doesn't really happen anyway). And ultimately, output would result from how much the public puts into it - as an alternative to broadcast television.
 
Doing that with a whole season's worth of a show (15 - 18 hours of content for something like a current "hour" long commercial show) would be a much bigger risk for a studio than direct to video (or DVD) movies are. I'm not sure how many people would sign full season subscriptions based on only a pilot. I could see more people doing it after they actually became fans for a while (assuming that the a season subscription offered a discount over paying for all of the eps individually).

I would think that going pay-per-view with the cable companies working more like Tivo / Internet access providers is a more likely scenario ..... once the bandwidth and on demand disc-farms-full-of-shows infrastructure is in place. Of course, it would probably have to start out like current pay-per-view movies are shown first, before "real" on demand downloading.

I don't think the buisiness model obstacles here are necessarily insurmountable. They probably won't be attacked by anyone as one giant leap in how things are done, though. Maybe if something with a fair amount of buzz on a premium channel (something like The Sopranos, for example) started being put on pay-per-view for half the price of just subscribing to HBO full time, that could start things in that direction. The thing is: I'm not sure if the price difference between a Sopranos-only subscription and a regular HBO subscription would be enough to get enough people to do it so that it would be worth the trouble for HBO.
 
This is sort of what I've reflected in Beyond the Rim. DVDs have to be taken into account, to take the burden off of the TV networks.

But straight to DVD TV, now that's a great thought. A TV show that's just created for that medium. Doesn't have to be as long a 22 episode. Say it's 11. Say we pay $11m for that to be created. To make that money back would be a doddle on the DVDs, if they were marketed right.
 
A show that would sell well in that scenario has to be 24. After seeing the season/series/pilot-opener, you'll be hooked real nicely. 24 begs to be bought whole since each hour is crucial to the whole series.
 
The thing is a show being on tv is the marketing for DVDs. I would definately not buy B5 DVDs without having ever seen it. TV series that do well on DVD are those that have enough buzz that that people want to see what they've been missing all at once(Sopranos) or have fans passionate enough to plunk money down. The buzz coming from being seen on tv. Direct to video movies often seem to be sequels or star known commodities providing a built in audience. Asking people to pay a decent amount of money for a show they have no idea about would not work.
 
The pilot episode would have to sell for no more than a cinema ticket. After a bit trailers could run on other DVDs and in the press. However getting sufficent initial sales is hard.
 
The thing is a show being on tv is the marketing for DVDs. I would definately not buy B5 DVDs without having ever seen it. TV series that do well on DVD are those that have enough buzz that that people want to see what they've been missing all at once(Sopranos) or have fans passionate enough to plunk money down. The buzz coming from being seen on tv. Direct to video movies often seem to be sequels or star known commodities providing a built in audience. Asking people to pay a decent amount of money for a show they have no idea about would not work.
Click to expand...

The great thing about DVDs is that they also have resale value. If you're unhappy with the product, you can always sell it (at a loss though) like any other DVD or CD or whatever. I know I've done it more than a couple of times. And as stated above, a pilot episode would obviously have to be cheaper for the consumer to bite. But it is the same principle used today. After all, would you watch B5 at all after seeing a promo for it? Because what I propose would be a system in which you only paid for shows you'd want to watch, not ten things you do and ninety things you don't. And the vast majority of people are paying for TV anyway.
 
The economics and industry prejudices are both against any such plan, which between them pretty much mean nothing like this is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

"Direct to DVD" TV series would be a financial disaster. Currently the studios get part of their production money back from network licensing agreements, and they make more from foreign rights and (in some cases) merchandising. They either lose just a bit, break even, or make a tiny profit on the initial run of a series, depending on how popular it is and other factors. Then they generally make even more money on it by selling it into syndication. A couple of years in reruns also tends to increase the size of the audience beyond the original broadcasts. At that point it can make sense to spend the not-inconsiderable amount of money it costs to put a show on DVD, because it is largely paid for and has a built-in audience. Anything the studio makes beyond the actual cost of the DVD release is pure profit. (After royalties and fees, of course.)

Now consider your model - direct to DVD release. The DVD has to recoup the entire cost of producing the pilot and/or series. This is damned risky for something nobody's ever heard of before. Yes, you can release an otherwise unmarketable low-budget horror film or lousy Steven Segal movie (or is that an oxymoron?) to video/DVD. Most of your sales are going to be to rental outlets, not consumers. People browsing the aisles at blockbuster looking for a slasher movie are a lot more likely to rent one they've never heard of that has a good-looking cover, or check out that Segal picture when they can't get the new release they came for - and they'll generally assume it is one that they simply missed in theaters.

But direct-to-video is seen in Hollywood as a species of failure. You release a film that way when you can't get it into theaters, in an attempt to mitigate your losses. (Or because you don't dare release it in theaters because it is such a dog. The Guy Ritchie-Madonna version of Swept Away was pulled from theaters and will be released on video and DVD next month because, as Ritchie himself recently noted, "People think it's shit." /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Direct-to-video is a way to prevent a film from being a total loss. It is not a way to turn a profit.

While it is true that some recent theatrical film DVD releases have made more on disc than they did in theaters, it is mostly the blockbusters that did this. Spiderman and LotR were huge on DVD because they were huge in theaters. They would not have been as successful if they'd been released on video first. Again, you need the built-in audience to drive sales. Yes, you'll also get people who didn't get around to seeing the film in theaters, but are curious abou the hype. (And folks who hate trying to watch a movie surrounded by cell-phone wielding teenagers calling their friends in row 10 to discuss the film or their love lives. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) But without the core audience that saw the film three times in theaters and wants to own it on DVD you're not going to get those big sales. (Besides, a lot of the stories comparing box office to DVD gross sales are misleading. Often they compare the U.S. domestic box office gross to world-wide DVD sales, which creates obvious problems.)

It remains the case that a product has to at least be released in another medium and build up some kind of word-of-mouth before it can be a success on any form of home video. The Princess Bride did only middling business in theaters (because the studio how no idea how to market it), but became a hit on VHS. But it became a hit because people who had loved it in the theaters bought copies and evangelized their friends. If it had gone direct to video, it would have sunk without a trace.

Home video is a good way of reselling something you've already sold somewhere else. It is not a good way to make money with original products. I wouldn't expect to see TV series produced direct for video anytime soon.

Regards,

Joe
 
What about series that are not completely new but were cancelled before they could run their whole course? Series that managed to build a stable, if not huge, fanbase? In other words, stuff like Crusade, Firefly, Odyssey 5, Farscape?

Especially series that were cancelled because they didn't fit with the network image, not necessarily because the ratings were really bad? Could these have potential to continue as straight to DVD releases?
 
Such a trend might cause network TV and cable to make excellent series pilot and maybe even half or full seasons of quality programming with a riviting cliffhanger ... "to be continued at your local Suncoast and Blockbuster!" /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
What about series that are not completely new but were cancelled before they could run their whole course? Series that managed to build a stable, if not huge, fanbase? In other words, stuff like Crusade, Firefly, Odyssey 5, Farscape?
Click to expand...

Most of those shows came in at well under the "magic" 100 episodes - which means they'd never see the light of day again were it not for the existance of a "niche" channel like Sci-Fi that will rerun such marginal fare.

It might make sense to release the existing episodes for such shows on DVD, but not to "complete" the series in any meaningful way. The same economic problems apply to the newly produced episodes - the DVD sales alone would have to cover the entire cost, plus return a profit. There would be no other revenue stream like network fees and overseas sales. I doubt that something like Odyssey 5, which couldn't even survive on a network like Showtime, supported by subscription fees and therefore much less reliant on ratings, would be profitable on DVD.

Depending on how well the existing DVDs are doing, and how much interest there is for international broadcast rights, Farscape might be a candidate for something like this - but probably not. Despite the unprecedented success of the format, DVD is still a minority format, probably in around 25% of U.S. households, unlike VHS which is in about 90% of American homes. The installed base probably isn't yet large enough for a continuation of Farscape to be profitable on DVD sales alone given how costly the show was to produce. (Not to mention the fact that the producers would now have to resign the cast, lease studio space and rebuild whatever sets, props and costumes were destroyed when they shut down production many months ago.)

Someday this could be a viable way to produce long-form entertainment, but we aren't there yet, and won't be for a long time to come.

Regards,

Joe
 
Currently most movies come out on both VHS and DVD in the UK. The same could be done with a series.

There has been a successful straight to video series in the UK. It was called Electric Blue. It contained comic sketches, pictures of cars and naked women. Electric Blue ran for several years (it may still be running).
 
Speaking as someone who buys many of her DVDs without having seen them before (heck, before we even -had- a DVD player too) I think producing TV shows directly to DVD would be too risky. I am willing to invest $20-25 on a movie I haven't seen but many other people seem to like or comes highly recommended. However, I am not going to plunk down $50-100 for an entire season of a show I know nothing about.

I am probably in the minority since I rarely rent movies (or even go see them in the theater) and figure it is worth spending a few more dollars to have the movie and watch it whenever I want to. Plus, for some movies, it would take a few days just to get through all the special features! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

However, to finish or continue a popular show such as Firefly or Farscape on DVD ... that is more appealing to me but still risky since the next season could be crap and I would have wasted my money. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 86 (members: 0, guests: 86)

Share this page

Back
Top