Comments on: Boycott Bubble Blowers http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/ The official AllPeers blog Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:35:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Earthling - EarthLink blog http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6624 Earthling - EarthLink blog Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:59:58 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6624 <strong>The Movies Versus Your Comfortable Living Room Chair</strong> To me it has the distinct feeling of a monopoly, where no one has to compete for your business so they don't bother. The existence of smaller chains like Landmark makes for more choice in type of movie, but is anyone out there offering a unique approa... The Movies Versus Your Comfortable Living Room Chair

To me it has the distinct feeling of a monopoly, where no one has to compete for your business so they don’t bother. The existence of smaller chains like Landmark makes for more choice in type of movie, but is anyone out there offering a unique approa…

]]> By: mwarden http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6509 mwarden Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:20:32 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6509 If it would hurt theaters so much to release a movie in this model, it would seem that the market does not want as many theaters. Supporting this move should lessen economic bloat (theaters), which, according to those who support free trade, helps everyone in the local economy. To me, the move to not screen Bubble just seems stupid. If it is true that they are reacting to the simultaneous release as DVD, how does it help them to remove it from their theaters? If it is true that the market does not want theaters, how does it help them to force a confirmation of this by allowing a movie like this to be available only elsewhere? In the last 5 years or so, theaters have realized that people don't go to theaters for the movies. Why would I spend $18 for two tickets to a movie when I could spend $19.99 for the DVD and watch it at home? Well, because I don't have a monster screen and a ridiculously expensive sound system. The thought that most people say "Wow, I really want to go see Movie X. I better find someone to go to the theaters with." has been discredited over what really happens: "I want to go to the movies. What's playing when I can go?" If it would hurt theaters so much to release a movie in this model, it would seem that the market does not want as many theaters. Supporting this move should lessen economic bloat (theaters), which, according to those who support free trade, helps everyone in the local economy.

To me, the move to not screen Bubble just seems stupid. If it is true that they are reacting to the simultaneous release as DVD, how does it help them to remove it from their theaters? If it is true that the market does not want theaters, how does it help them to force a confirmation of this by allowing a movie like this to be available only elsewhere?

In the last 5 years or so, theaters have realized that people don’t go to theaters for the movies. Why would I spend $18 for two tickets to a movie when I could spend $19.99 for the DVD and watch it at home? Well, because I don’t have a monster screen and a ridiculously expensive sound system. The thought that most people say “Wow, I really want to go see Movie X. I better find someone to go to the theaters with.” has been discredited over what really happens: “I want to go to the movies. What’s playing when I can go?”

]]> By: Mike http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6454 Mike Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:03:19 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6454 why does it always boil down to shut up and code? ;) why does it always boil down to shut up and code? ;)

]]> By: Travis http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6453 Travis Fri, 03 Feb 2006 05:34:52 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6453 Um, no, these cinemas are making the decision based on good business reasons, and its exactly maximizing revenue per screen. That however does not make it right. It does however discredit your opinion when you state things so confidently without knowing basic facts about the businesses your discussing. Crazy idea -- How about you focus on your business and finishing up this great little app we've all been waiting months for? Um, no, these cinemas are making the decision based on good business reasons, and its exactly maximizing revenue per screen. That however does not make it right. It does however discredit your opinion when you state things so confidently without knowing basic facts about the businesses your discussing. Crazy idea — How about you focus on your business and finishing up this great little app we’ve all been waiting months for?

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6450 Matt Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:45:29 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6450 Mike, you are absolutely right. If I believed that these cinemas were making the decision not to screen Bubble based on good business reasons (maximizing revenue per screen), I would have no objection whatsoever. I don't believe this though. It is clear from the statements I've read that they are colluding to "punish" the distributor for having the temerity to challenge their cosy monopoly. Mike, you are absolutely right. If I believed that these cinemas were making the decision not to screen Bubble based on good business reasons (maximizing revenue per screen), I would have no objection whatsoever. I don’t believe this though. It is clear from the statements I’ve read that they are colluding to “punish” the distributor for having the temerity to challenge their cosy monopoly.

]]> By: Mike http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6447 Mike Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:21:36 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6447 I guess I could skype you to resolve this in person but writing in public (limited as it is) is so much more fun. So you agree capitalism is based on moving resources to maximize your return (e.g. manufacturing in China). So if a theater determines that a simultaneous release on DVD and theaters will result in a lesser amount of revenue to them than other movies they could show on their screens, aren't they free to allocate their resources (movie screens) as they see fit and NOT show Bubble? They already make those decisions with movie selection (X-rated vs. R vs. PG..., etc.) on a daily basis. So why boycott them for making what they believe is a proper decision on the allocation of their limited resources? I guess I could skype you to resolve this in person but writing in public (limited as it is) is so much more fun. So you agree capitalism is based on moving resources to maximize your return (e.g. manufacturing in China). So if a theater determines that a simultaneous release on DVD and theaters will result in a lesser amount of revenue to them than other movies they could show on their screens, aren’t they free to allocate their resources (movie screens) as they see fit and NOT show Bubble? They already make those decisions with movie selection (X-rated vs. R vs. PG…, etc.) on a daily basis. So why boycott them for making what they believe is a proper decision on the allocation of their limited resources?

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6443 Matt Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:28:11 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6443 I'm a huge proponent of free trade, and I do believe that the American workforce needs to continue its shift away from low-skill manufacturing in order to compete with countries like China that have a huge comparative advantage in this area. Obviously there are many considerations besides unionization, but the bottom line is that the gradual migration of less skilled activities to countries further down the development chain is to everyone's benefit in the long term, though of course this is capitalism so there will always be some losers in the short term, and society has to decide how much to cushion their position and how (but definitely not through the regressive mechanism of blocking trade). Your thought experiment about individuals who invested their entire life savings into arthouse theaters made me chuckle. I don't think an argument based on this type of far-fetched scenario has much value. But I'll take it at face value and say this: there are mechanisms for protecting this type of business if society feels that it is important despite not being economically viable. They could be subsized by taxpayers' money like the National Theater in London, for example. The right way to go about this is definitely <strong>not</strong> to penalize all consumers my taking away their right to choose where they want to watch movies. I should add that both the hypothesis that movies theaters (arthouse or otherwise) are inherently uneconomical and the hypothesis that simultaneous release will result in lower cinema receipts are totally unproven and, in my equally unproven opinion, both dead wrong. I’m a huge proponent of free trade, and I do believe that the American workforce needs to continue its shift away from low-skill manufacturing in order to compete with countries like China that have a huge comparative advantage in this area. Obviously there are many considerations besides unionization, but the bottom line is that the gradual migration of less skilled activities to countries further down the development chain is to everyone’s benefit in the long term, though of course this is capitalism so there will always be some losers in the short term, and society has to decide how much to cushion their position and how (but definitely not through the regressive mechanism of blocking trade).

Your thought experiment about individuals who invested their entire life savings into arthouse theaters made me chuckle. I don’t think an argument based on this type of far-fetched scenario has much value. But I’ll take it at face value and say this: there are mechanisms for protecting this type of business if society feels that it is important despite not being economically viable. They could be subsized by taxpayers’ money like the National Theater in London, for example. The right way to go about this is definitely not to penalize all consumers my taking away their right to choose where they want to watch movies.

I should add that both the hypothesis that movies theaters (arthouse or otherwise) are inherently uneconomical and the hypothesis that simultaneous release will result in lower cinema receipts are totally unproven and, in my equally unproven opinion, both dead wrong.

]]> By: Mike http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6442 Mike Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:12:07 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6442 If as you say companies should just respond to changes by deploying their capital and labor elsewhere, then all unionized manufacturing will move to China where there are no unions or expensive social programs to support, no insurance, etc. Just as with the shift from the horse and buggy to the car, high paid manufacturing workers in the US and Europe can just start flipping burgers...or so I deduce from your position ;). Things are not as black and white as you make present here. There is a lot of grey. If you, as an individual, invested your life savings in an arthouse theater to help inform people, under the tacit agreement that you would get these movies before DVD, and then someone changed the rules of the game, you too would be upset...as an individual. To quote Michael Corleone in the Godfather: "It's not personal Sonny. It's strictly business." But in reality everything is personal, and those people who invested in arthouse theaters are individuals being steamrolled by the powerful Hollywood establishment. If as you say companies should just respond to changes by deploying their capital and labor elsewhere, then all unionized manufacturing will move to China where there are no unions or expensive social programs to support, no insurance, etc. Just as with the shift from the horse and buggy to the car, high paid manufacturing workers in the US and Europe can just start flipping burgers…or so I deduce from your position ;).

Things are not as black and white as you make present here. There is a lot of grey. If you, as an individual, invested your life savings in an arthouse theater to help inform people, under the tacit agreement that you would get these movies before DVD, and then someone changed the rules of the game, you too would be upset…as an individual.

To quote Michael Corleone in the Godfather: “It’s not personal Sonny. It’s strictly business.” But in reality everything is personal, and those people who invested in arthouse theaters are individuals being steamrolled by the powerful Hollywood establishment.

]]> By: Matt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6441 Matt Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:42:50 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6441 It's silly to suggest that movie theaters are in the same boat as consumers because they are "on the weak end of a lopsided power balance with regard to the Hollywood establishment" or that "that model definitely does screw over theaters." Business models change rapidly in our technological age, and measures to cling to old models have failed time and again. If movie theaters can't compete fairly with other ways of watching films, they will fall by the wayside just like the horse-drawn carriage, the rotary telephone and the Commodore 64. I'm sure the horse-drawn carriage manufacturers were up in arms about this at one time, but if they had been allowed to slow the march of technological progress, society as a whole would have paid a hugely disproportionate price. The same is true here. Different rules apply to individuals and companies, period, because unlike individuals, companies can take their inputs (capital and labor) and deploy them elsewhere. Regarding unions: In the case of airline union strike, the public suffers minimally for a few days. The theatre owners are trying to block a major new avenue of consumer choice for all eternity. The two can hardly be lumped together as proof that "the consumer always suffers." It’s silly to suggest that movie theaters are in the same boat as consumers because they are “on the weak end of a lopsided power balance with regard to the Hollywood establishment” or that “that model definitely does screw over theaters.” Business models change rapidly in our technological age, and measures to cling to old models have failed time and again. If movie theaters can’t compete fairly with other ways of watching films, they will fall by the wayside just like the horse-drawn carriage, the rotary telephone and the Commodore 64. I’m sure the horse-drawn carriage manufacturers were up in arms about this at one time, but if they had been allowed to slow the march of technological progress, society as a whole would have paid a hugely disproportionate price. The same is true here. Different rules apply to individuals and companies, period, because unlike individuals, companies can take their inputs (capital and labor) and deploy them elsewhere.

Regarding unions: In the case of airline union strike, the public suffers minimally for a few days. The theatre owners are trying to block a major new avenue of consumer choice for all eternity. The two can hardly be lumped together as proof that “the consumer always suffers.”

]]> By: J. S. Nelson http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6440 J. S. Nelson Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:38:02 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2006/01/27/boycott-bubble-blowers/#comment-6440 Yeah. I hear that most theaters barely make money actually, particularly the types that would be screening bubble anyway. The move on the part of Cuban's company sounds cool, like he is restructuring how media is delivered like he is always trying to do, but that model definitely does screw over theaters. I hear that distribution companies profit more on dvd sales than theater releases, and Mark's empire is definitely mangnitudes larger than most theater chains. So it turns out that it's the big distribution company leveraging strong arm anti-competative tactics against smaller companies lower on their supply chain. Who knew? The tactics on the part of the theater owners do hurt the consumers, but it's actually concievable that quite a few arthouse theaters would simply go out of business if such a distribution model became prevalent. I guess it comes down to whether you like dvds more than theaters enough to basically destroy the business model of small theaters. I don't. It would be interesting if they did do a limited dvd release at the same time... and then sold them at the theaters. Think "like this movie? pay four more dollars and get the dvd right after watching it." That would be interesting. Yeah. I hear that most theaters barely make money actually, particularly the types that would be screening bubble anyway. The move on the part of Cuban’s company sounds cool, like he is restructuring how media is delivered like he is always trying to do, but that model definitely does screw over theaters. I hear that distribution companies profit more on dvd sales than theater releases, and Mark’s empire is definitely mangnitudes larger than most theater chains. So it turns out that it’s the big distribution company leveraging strong arm anti-competative tactics against smaller companies lower on their supply chain. Who knew?
The tactics on the part of the theater owners do hurt the consumers, but it’s actually concievable that quite a few arthouse theaters would simply go out of business if such a distribution model became prevalent.
I guess it comes down to whether you like dvds more than theaters enough to basically destroy the business model of small theaters. I don’t.

It would be interesting if they did do a limited dvd release at the same time… and then sold them at the theaters. Think “like this movie? pay four more dollars and get the dvd right after watching it.” That would be interesting.

]]>