[gloco]

I just came back from buying some DVD's at JandR in Lower Manhattan, i picked up 7 DVD's for $78 (includes tax). Now, i started thinking why the heck am i able to find DVD's as cheap as $5.99 while i can't ever recall buying a new cd (unless it was bargain bin **** - C product, cut outs, etc. I picked up South Central, Lawnmower Man and Logan's run each for $5.99 and the rest were $9.99 (excluding V: the minseries which came up for $14.99). The $9.99 DVD's were: Men at work (Sheen, Estevez), Transylvania 6-5000 (hey...i love whacked out comedies), Commando (ahnold!), Rudy.

Ok, not exactly big blockbusters, but still...why are the music stores still charging $14-$20 for cd's that were big sellers when they came out, like Led Zep, Beatles (the 2cd '62-'66 red collection could fit on one cd mind you), Metallica, The Stones etc. Doesn't make sense, you gotta figure a movie has to make up that much more money to cover the costs of production, compared to a cd...pay an artist a buck or two (if their lucky) per cd sold, spend some cash on advertising and they tour (if they have talent). Most of the movies i bought, if not all, probably didn't make more than fifty million in the theaters (maybe Commando went over that, not sure).

I find myself getting better deals with DVD's than i ever did with CD's. What's the deal? What are your thoughts, do you guys/gals get good deals on DVD's?

 

[jpelg]

Good point, gloco.

I just picked up "Altered States" the other day for $5.00, brand new at Walmart (my find of the week)! They had others there too for the same price, and lots of others for $9.99.

 

[mbriant]

I wonder what the total world-wide DVD sales for a blockbuster movie are compared to world-wide sales of a blockbuster CD?

The cost of manufacturing a CD is quite low, especially in large quantity. Probably less than $1.00 each. This gets you a pressed CD with graphics and a shrinkwrapped case. I imagine DVD manufacturing costs (in large quantity) are similar.

The other big cost factor is the content you're putting on the disc. The cost of recording a music CD, by a big artist in the most expensive studio would be miniscule compared to the cost of making a blockbuster movie. So you would think with manufacturing costs the same, a DVD should be more expensive than a CD.

However, a successful movie has already paid for all it's production costs and hopefully has already made a profit from the theatrical release of the movie. The DVD therefore only really costs the actual cost of manufacture. The content has already been paid for. Plus a movie earns more money still through selling television and pay tv rights as well as from the rental market where they charge Blockbuster $100 or so per DVD/VHS. Plus they get even more revenue from the same movie through VHS sales. The accountants can adjust the numbers around all they want, but at the end of the day, DVD's are subsidized by all the other revenue streams a movie can draw from. DVD sales is practically pure gravy.

A music CD however has to pay for all of it's content (fixed production costs) through sales of the CD alone, so it's effectively more expensive to produce.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant However, a successful movie has already paid for all it's production costs and hopefully has already made a profit from the theatrical release of the movie. The DVD therefore only really costs the actual cost of manufacture. The content has already been paid for. Plus a movie earns more money still through selling television and pay tv rights as well as from the rental market where they charge Blockbuster $100 or so per DVD/VHS. Plus they get even more revenue from the same movie through VHS sales. The accountants can adjust the numbers around all they want, but at the end of the day, DVD's are subsidized by all the other revenue streams a movie can draw from. DVD sales is practically pure gravy. A music CD however has to pay for all of it's content (fixed production costs) through sales of the CD alone, so it's effectively more expensive to produce.

Ok, i can buy that to an extent, but still, most movies are not blockbusters earning hundreds of millions worldwide, but they can be found cheaper than an audio cd. If a cd costs only a buck or two to mass produce then sell to the retailers for lets say $10-$11, where's all that money going? I gotta figure DVD's cost a bit more to mass produce since the technology is a bit different...i wonder how long it takes to mass produce a million dvd's vs. a million cds? Also, the costs of creating all those special features, etc etc must factor in and still, those dvd's sell for the same price as an audio cd. Hell, vinyl albums sold for cheaper when they were big in the 80's.

 

[SBomm]

Quote:

Plus a movie earns more money still through selling television and pay tv rights as well as from the rental market where they charge Blockbuster $100 or so per DVD/VHS.

I remember reading that Blockbuster gets their videos for approximately $5 each. One rental covers the cost and then they sell it used for $9.99.

Here it is from Fortune.com

"Renting videos was a frustrating affair before Blockbuster Video turned the industry upside down. Forced to pay movie studios about $65 for each video, many mom-and-pop businesses struggled to eke out a living and could barely afford to keep hit items in stock. Then, in 1997, CEO John Antioco cut a groundbreaking deal with Hollywood studios such as Disney in which Blockbuster would buy thousands of copies of popular films for $6 apiece, plus a 40% share of rental fees."

 

[wallijonn]

1] because that's what the recording labels want you to pay
2] because that's what you're willing to pay
3] there is no public domain music
4] the recording industry will say it's to make up the loses from pirating
5] because cd product outnumbers dvd product 1000 to 1 and therefore the sales from any one cd product will be less than the sales from any one dvd product
6] a dvd title - you can read on the box what it's about and on a cd you can't. you're therefore more likely to buy a movie that appeals to your taste while the music will have to be done by people who have excess cash or who are fanatics of the group.
7] many cd stores have a bargain bin for music.
8] many companies subsidise other industries (or departments)with their cd sales

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by wallijonn 1] because that's what the recording labels want you to pay 2] because that's what you're willing to pay 3] there is no public domain music 4] the recording industry will say it's to make up the loses from pirating 5] because cd product outnumbers dvd product 1000 to 1 and therefore the sales from any one cd product will be less than the sales from any one dvd product 6] a dvd title - you can read on the box what it's about and on a cd you can't. you're therefore more likely to buy a movie that appeals to your taste while the music will have to be done by people who have excess cash or who are fanatics of the group. 7] many cd stores have a bargain bin for music. 8] many companies subsidise other industries (or departments)with their cd sales

1. I strongly believe in buying from the cheapest outlets, Sam goody will never see a penny from me.
2. if i was willing to pay that amount i wouldn't have started this thread eh?
3. ...
4. a very weak argument IMHO.
5. huh? How often does a DVD sell ten million units? NEVER. I always figured the more mass producing is going on (cd vs DVD), the cheaper the product should be.
6. Who reads what it says on the back of a DVD?
7. the cd bargain bin has cds for $7-$10...not really a bargain in my book. Don't get me started on cuts out and cheesy compilations with lousy sound quality.
8. I wonder how easy it is to move profits earned from a music division to, lets say, a home electronics division.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I remember reading that Blockbuster gets their videos for approximately $5 each. One rental covers the cost and then they sell it used for $9.99.

Yes, but they gave up 40% of the rental fee to get the cheap up-front price. I believe the stores which pay $65 for the movie, would be able to keep 100% of the rental fees. Either way, the film companies get a good chunk of change from sales to rental outlets.

 

[grinch]

cheap dvds always suck. if the content doesn't royally suck, the production of the dvd certainly does.

cheap cds usually suck fairly often. i can only remember a small number of cds that i've taken the chance on and bought new when they cost under $10.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch cheap dvds always suck. if the content doesn't royally suck, the production of the dvd certainly does. cheap cds usually suck fairly often. i can only remember a small number of cds that i've taken the chance on and bought new when they cost under $10.

Sure, cheap DVD's from unknown companies tend to suck. Sure, your not going to get mountains of extra's for a $10 dvd, but its either that or no DVD of that particular movie. How can a new cd that costs $10 suck? Have you ever visited disco-rama? JandR is sometimes kind enough to have sales on new releases for $9.99, by new releases i mean A-product.

 

[kerelybonto]

Keep in mind that there are many more albums cut than movies filmed. Believe it or not, Hollywood has a lot more control over what movies we see than the RIAA does over what music we hear. Because of this, movies almost never lose money -- CDs do often. The RIAA will tell you that CDs are expensive because the profits from latest U2 album have to cover the losses incurred on all those bands we've never heard of.

The RIAA's Ministry of Propaganda has a good website that tries to explain all of this -- check it out here. There's one paragraph I especially like that runs like this: Quote:

Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn’t just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.

Now that's just grand. They're telling us that CDs are so damn expensive because they spend s a ****load of money trying to make us listen to what they want. Ever think of letting us decide what we want to listen to on our own? You know, going to shows, listening to radio (if the RIAA didn't pay them to play certain songs, naturally the best songs would make it and the bad ones wouldn't) -- basing our preferences on what we hear? Would it be that bad to go back to the days of the Led Zeppelins of the music world?

Now, the RIAA's argument's still a crock. Please don't try to tell me that a 35,000-person arena concert with tickets costing $40 a pop before fees doesn't pay for itself. And how much does it actually cost to produce a CD? Studio time's pretty cheap, production costs aren't so bad. An indie band can put out a 15-track album for a few grand -- I'd think the big boys couldn't manage to go much over ten times that. Make it a hundred times to be safe -- and it still only takes one multi-platinum release to cover the cost of dozens of other albums.

So I think people are starting to catch on. That's why we got the price-fixing lawsuit (settlement money available here) and why so many people are unhesitant about pirating music. So, you know ...

kerely

 

[grinch]

i'm just trying to say that you get what you pay for. i don't think i'd pay a dime to own each of those dvds that you listed. i bought a three pack of classical cds for $5 once, and i never will again.

what i'm trying to say is: there's REASON why some cds and dvds are so cheap.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch i'm just trying to say that you get what you pay for. i don't think i'd pay a dime to own each of those dvds that you listed. i bought a three pack of classical cds for $5 once, and i never will again. what i'm trying to say is: there's REASON why some cds and dvds are so cheap.

I'm sure you wouldn't pay a dime for dmb cds either.

Ok, so what are the reasons? Some cds suck? Some movies suck? Hell, if that's the reason, then most people are being overcharged for crappy movies that are big sellers.

I think we're all aware of of those classical collections...but it doesn't hold true to most dvds and popular music.

 

[redshifter]

the bargain basement dvd's i've bought often used masters ported over from the laserdisc master. compared with modern dvd masters, these old ld masters suffer from grain, softness, and color bleeding. my wife bought a bargain dvd of "royal wedding" that was actually worse quality than vhs.

dvd's are cheap now because they are a new format, and the industry wants to get them in consumers' collections. i remember reading some studios price their dvd's to get the "impulse buy" from consumers, which has gotten me before.

also keep in mind that some studios charge a lot more for their dvd's than others.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by gloco I'm sure you wouldn't pay a dime for dmb cds either.

i wouldn't own them if i was paid to. and my life was threatened. and my family was being held hostage. and a gang of gay men was going to rape me. okay, so maybe i'd own "under the table and dreaming" if that last one happened, BUT I WOULDN'T LISTEN TO IT!

Quote:

Ok, so what are the reasons? Some cds suck? Some movies suck? Hell, if that's the reason, then most people are being overcharged for crappy movies that are big sellers.

my first reaction to this is: duh.

do you think i'd actually pay $17 for a dvd of minority report, or $15 for britney's latest album?

Quote:

I think we're all aware of of those classical collections...but it doesn't hold true to most dvds and popular music.

i disagree, but okay. i find that cheap cds (that are worth buying) are just tough to find unless you go used, which is cool with me most of the time. the other thing i like is indie record labels. usually you can order online directly from the label for around $10 a cd, or you can get them at shows tax-free for $10-12. eps are usually only $5-8.