Kiosk.net

Studios have used outside research for years in order to manage the distribution and manufacture of video and DVD releases, but lately they’ve been turning to some new sources: Netflix queues and Amazon pre-orders. Unlike focus groups and theater grosses, customers of Netflix and Amazon are “voting with their wallets,” according to Calandarlive.com. Netflix users are able to put DVDs in there queues weeks or even months before their release, to be shipped when they become available. Amazon users have the same option with pre-orders, buying DVDs which are shipped once they’re released.

The internet has been useful to studios in a number of other ways, including word of mouth marketing on websites like DVDtalk and TVonDVD.com, and blogs like… kiosk.net. But mostly those other two ones. The websites produce a buzz about certain titles, boosting their overall sales and surprising the studios with hits like “Roswell,” (remember that show?) and cult films like “’Myra Breckenridge.”

One other effect of this development is the importance of institutions like Netflix in terms of influencing sales and influencing what the studios choose to produce. As more and more people choose to get their DVDs through online channels, consumers will also gain more and more control over the products themselves.

Netflix is already mainstreaming the behavior of watching specialty films, Sarandos says. And its influence, he says, should only increase with time.

“With 3 million subscribers, we’re interesting to the studios,” he said. “With 5 million, we’d be meaningful, with more bottom-line impact. With 10 million, we could reshape distribution. If we put a spotlight on less mainstream films, maybe studios would be emboldened to release product that’s more ‘challenging,’ shall we say. Our numbers could affect not only marketing plans but the kind of movies that get made.”

As always, in situations like this, everybody wins. Consumers, because they’re getting what they want, studios because they’re selling more DVDs more effectively, and the go-between, Netflix, because of increased subscribers. This type of personalization can be seen on the websites mentioned above, personal pages developed by logging what the customer has viewed and purchased in the past.

More on the Netflix Queue

Amazon pre-orders appear in blogs like this one.

I’m not sure why comments made by Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, in March have been so extensively re-reported on the web today, but now seems like as good a time as any to re-examine the concept of a simultaneous theatrical and DVD release.

What Mr. Iger said all those months ago (or threatened, according to some) is that maybe things would be better if movies were released on DVD the same day as their theatrical release. This would have a number of effects on the industry. Camcorder piracy would be ended, millions of dollars per movie would be saved on marketing campaigns, DVD sales would increase (and at this point its starting to look like they may need it), but, most importantly, theater attendance would drop at an unprecedented rate. For an industry that’s already in trouble, this might be the nail on the coffin.

So what’s really been said here? The way I see it, there are three possible ways to read Mr. Iger’s statement. The first is the way the studios perceived it: as a death threat. He was letting everyone know that this monkey business has been going on long enough, the theaters have outlived their usefulness, and its time for them to be cut out of the picture. This may indeed be the case. As I’ve said before on Kiosk.net, things change. But I don’t think anybody really wants the movie theater, as an institution, to be wiped out.

So maybe it wasn’t a death threat so much as an ultimatum. “If you don’t start turning some better receipts, I’ll cut you out of the picture.” This may be the wake-up call that theater operators like Loews need to get their acts together. If it is indeed their fault, as some have speculated, the theaters will have to step up the theater-going experience in order to prove themselves worthy again. People are sick of high ticket prices, ridiculous concession prices, uncomfortable seats, sticky floors, talking neighbors, ringing cell phones, and the half hour of commercials before every single movie. If the experience was improved, maybe people would come back to the theaters and they wouldn’t need to worry about Iger’s death threat.

All the same, the theater operators make a valid point: the whole thing may very well be the fault of the studios themselves, producing a glut of crappy movies. Hard to argue that point.

Then again, the simultaneous release may just be good sense. At least for the studios. DVD sales and TV licensing make up the bulk of their sales, so even if movie attendance was cut in half, they’d still be making most of their money. The theatrical release functions more as a commercial for the DVD release than anything else; more and more movies aren’t even making back their cost of production at theaters. The theatrical releases would still fulfill this function, that of a commercial, even if they were released at the same time as the DVDs. After all, when you can hear a song on the radio you can buy the CD right away. When you see a commercial for Tide, you can buy the soap right away.

Speaking of commercials, the biggest economic benefit to releasing movies in both formats is probably marketing costs. When a movie is released in the theaters, studios launch multi-million dollar ad campaigns to raise awareness. The same thing is then carried out five months later to promote the DVD. Cutting advertising costs basically in half would more than account for the drop off in theater attendance resulting from a simultaneous release.

But there is another option. According to an article that’s being bandied about the web, a company called 2929 (which owns film, television, and theater distribution channels) is considering a different approach to the simultaneous release:

In April, 2929 Entertainment, which owns two television networks, a chain of movie theaters and film and television distribution companies, announced a partnership with Oscar-winning film director Steven Soderbergh to direct six films and release them simultaneously in theaters, on TV and on DVD.

Wagner, the company’s co-owner, said under his model, theater owners share in the revenue made from distributing films on DVD and other media.

“We want the exhibitors to be a part of this because they should be and from my perspective, they always should have been,” Wagner said.

So there you have it. Maybe profit sharing is the best way to go about this, increase revenue, and make sure nobody is left out in the cold. A bit friendlier than a death threat at any rate.

As everyone knows, both revenue and theater attendance are down significantly from last year. There are a lot of reasons being touted as the cause of the box office slump, the quality of the films always at the forefront, sharing the limelight with massive HD home entertainment systems, piracy, the ease of renting on Netflix, the lengthy commercials before each showing, inflated ticket prices, the price of tea in China- you name it. But according to a study by Brandimensions, no, it really is the bad movies, first and foremost.

The study, which probed almost two million blogs and chat rooms, showed that even despite all the annoyances of going to the multiplex and all the other entertainment choices available to us, most people would still be willing to go to the movies if the quality of films were higher.

Even when responders indicated Netflix or other entertainment options as key reasons for avoiding the cinema, they also cited the poor quality of films as reasons why they were driven to other options in the first place.

Of course studios are recognizing this, and making plans for the future. However, short of axing all films currently in production and starting completely fresh, there’s no end in sight to the crapfest that is Hollywood; the fastest that we could possibly see any real change enacted is probably in 4 years time. And, as evidenced by monumental changes in the past year, 4 years is a long time, indeed. Who knows what will have happened by then?

At the same time, if the studios are finally changing their tune (to match an audience that is finally fed up and seeking out better options) then that’s all the better for everyone involved.

What others are saying

What the satarists are saying.

Yet more proof that Hollywood sucks.

Well, we’ve been ragging on Blockbuster for posting a loss for a while now and neglecting to mention the unprofitability of TiVo and Netflix in the past. But that’s all starting to change now. On the heels of a recent announcement of Netflix managing earnings, TiVo announced that it had made a profit in the last quarter.

From the New York Times:

TiVo, whose set-top box enables users to skip past commercials, reported net income for the second quarter of $240,000, or break-even per share. That compared with a net loss of $10.8 million, or 13 cents a share, in the same period of 2004.

Revenue for the quarter ended July 31 climbed 46 percent, to $40.7 million, the company said.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expected TiVo to lose 4 cents a share on revenue of $40.8 million.

“We’ve shown the world that we can manage to profitability,” TiVo’s chief executive, Thomas S. Rogers, said in a telephone interview. “Our customer base is generating enough revenue to secure profitability.”

It’s unclear weather TiVo will be able to maintain profitability however, especially in the face of their recent estrangement from DirectTV, their largest source of subscribers. TiVo’s CEO went on to say that he hoped to focus on increasing business, not becoming profitable in the short term.

…Mr. Rogers said he did not expect TiVo to sustain its profitability in the near term and that the company would probably lose $20 million to $25 million, on revenue of $41 million to $43 million, in the third quarter.

As always, Kiosk will be there with their fingers on the pulse of the industry.

Read the full New York Times article.

The world of movies is changing. Rental chains are posting losses, online services are gaining momentum, video on demand is becoming a reality, and the Box Office receipts (and attendance) are slowing, stagnating, slumping, and all those other S words. Makes you kind of wonder if they’re not all connected in some way…

Well, anyway, one thing hasn’t changed much and that’s summer movies. I mean, less people are going to see them, but the movies haven’t changed all that much in terms of quantity or quality, even though maybe they should.

But one thing I tend to do here at Kiosk is talk about the movies themselves from time to time, and, as the summer winds down (and a certain NYT article has recently spurred me into thinking about the box office), I think it’s a perfect time for the Kiosk.net Summer Movie Recap!

Editor’s Picks

There are movies that I can personally recommend to the public. They are Kiosk approved and guaranteed to interest, entertain, and maybe even educate you.

Batman Begins
A classic summer blockbuster, but with a brain and a soul. This was one of the years highest grossing films, and with good reason: A great movie backed up by a good advertising campaign. Batman just rules. I’m not talking about the Joel Schumacher, nipples on the bat suit, “What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age,” mega laser powered by a diamond, 60s camp Batman. I’m talking about the cool, dark, Tim Burton, Dark Knight Returns, Batman the Animated Series Batman; and he was there in full force in Christopher Nolan’s beautifully imaged and executed Batman Begins. The visuals were stunning, the acting was all in all great, the story was wonderful, and it reminded us of what it was we loved about Batman in the first place. There’s been plenty said about this movie by finer critics than I, so if you want to read more, just enter “Batman Begins” into Google and hit go.

Crash
“Crash” is an intelligent commentary on racism in America. It is more subtle than Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing,” and perhaps more powerful because of it. The characters in “Crash” are remarkably real and multi-faceted, both likable and deplorable. If you like serious dramas that have an intellectual and social side, and can handle a dark, down-beat, and sometimes depressing film, see Crash.

War of the Worlds
“War of the Worlds” was a masterpiece in many ways. The special effects were breath taking, Cruise’s acting was probably the best he’s done since “Eyes Wide Shut,” and Spielberg’s directing proves to the world that he is still the master storyteller of the summer blockbuster. With the exception of one scene (you’ll know the one if you saw the movie, sort of “oh, not that old chestnut, Spielberg, you were doing so well), the movie is blaringly smart, exciting, and even terrifying. Yes, War of the Worlds is scary. Sufficiently scary to capture the emotions of the apocalypse. Spielberg puts you right in the belly of the beast, into a seething mass of humanity afraid for its life, and he scares you without having to resort to cheap Hollywood scares (a sudden flash on the screen with at rill of violin music). I think the script could have used some work in terms of plotting, and I know the plot of the H.G. Wells novel was basically adhered to. There was an attempt at adding a climax sometime near the end that fell short, but that was not what the movie needed. Good books don’t necessarily make good movies, and when you adapt a novel, it is the director’s responsibility to take the appropriate liberties with the story, to bend it until it’s fit to be told via the cinema. Despite problems with story arc, the movie was still magnificent to behold and enjoyable to watch. I highly recommend it.

Sky High
This movie was fun, funny, and surprisingly good. The previews are a bit misleading in this regard. There are plenty of great scenes for kids and adults both, and anybody who loves comic books, or super heroes, or really anyone who remembers what it was like growing up should enjoy it. The only people who will really hate it are “too cool for school” teens aged 15-19 that haven’t yet fully developed their sense of humor. Young children looking forward at high school and the older crowd looking back should enjoy it. Plus, the casting is excellent, and the actors do a great job pulling off the wackiness of it. The kids were particularly good, bringing life to roles that could have been just another kiddy flick.

March of the Penguins
All the critics in Hollywood (and all the penguins in the South Poll) can’t be wrong. This was a kick-ass documentary. It was visually interesting, both in terms of subject and setting (penguins and Antarctica respectively) and emotionally engaging. Not only was it fun watching penguins sliding on their bellies a cross 70 miles of ice, but the story was compelling, their annual trip to their breeding ground, the hardships they have to suffer, the mortality of the births and deaths, all very good stuff. Not to mention baby penguins are very cute. It does drag at times, but overall I’d say this was a refreshing change to the normal summer fare, and is probably in line for a best documentary Oscar.

Howl’s Moving Castle
And “Howl’s Moving Castle” will probably be receiving the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. The creative genius behind “Spirited Away” and “Princess Monanoke” has done it again. The visuals in this piece alone were stunning enough to sell me on the movie. Add to that exciting action, and a fun story, and a cute dog and you have yourself a winner. Not as good as “Spirited Away,” in part due to some Deus Ex Machina plot devices and a confusing series of flashbacks, but still definitely worth seeing.

Flops

These are movies that were major financial disappointments. Some of them got what they deserved, others were good pictures that just got the shaft. Well, most of them got what they deserved.

Cinderella Man
Critically acclaimed, yet lost money at the Box Office. I guess people were sick of Russell Crowe’s phone throwing antics. Either that or they just didn’t buy the rehashed sports her plot. Maybe it would have done better if it was called what it was “Highbrow Rocky.”

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
This movie met reasonable critical success, but it was a box office disappointment, earning only $38m in the box office, this novel adaptation failed to become a new “Ya Ya Sisterhood.”

The Island
Oh, “The Island.” What were you thinking Michael Bay? This was the one of the biggest disappointments of the summer. It’s always painful when a big budget blockbuster fizzles at the BO. Painful for the studios anyway. But maybe even more painful for the audiences that paid to see it. Oy. The fact that the “original” story idea has appeared in about half a dozen previous movies didn’t help.

Bewitched
Another ill conceived nightmare. A pure remake of Bewitched might have gone somewhere, but it’s no surprise that the audience response to this movie was colder than a box of Gorton’s fish sticks. Despite a RELENTLESS marketing campaign, this “hip” reimagining of the classic TV show just didn’t resonate. Must have been that whole it’s-a-movie-about-a-TV-show-based-on-a-TV-show-except-it-turns-out-the-old-TV-show-was-real-the-whole-time thing.

STEALTH
Any movie that can’t figure out how to disable the capslock is doomed to box office failure. This is about as original as “The Island,” but with even worse acting, worse directing, and worse writing. Plenty of explosions though, so if you like that kind of thing, you might enjoy a lobotomy/STEALTH.

Dark Water
Again, totally rehashed from other ghost movies. Maybe it has scary parts, maybe not, I didn’t watch it, but apparently it was completely lame and deserved to be ignored at the box office.

The Dis-honor Roll

These are movies that are just plain bad. Some of them flopped, but others did quite well. Regardless of how they did in the box office, however, the operative word is awful. I haven’t seen any of these, so I’ll only give you a few words on them.

The Longest Yard
A remake that didn’t need to be made. Probably funny, but probably dumb as hell too. Critics hated it because it has absolutely no soul.

Fantastic Four
Dumbest super hero movie in the last 5 years.

Monster-in-Law
J-Lo is the worst actress in history, and this movie’s plot is completely ridiculous. Wanda Sykes is funny though.

The Perfect Man
The movie that Mr. Shmuger was talking about when he said this.

Skeleton Key
Like Dark Water but doing better at the BO.

Deuce Biggalow: European Gigolo
Makes me feel dumb even to write the title down.

Madagascar
Not everything computer animated is good. Robots, Shark Tale, Ice Age, and Madagascar all blow. The Incredibles it is not.

Must Love Dogs
Shameless plug for Match.com.

The Devil’s Rejects
Produced by Rob Zombie. His last name is Zombie. “More Human than Human” was a good song, but come on.

Herbie: Fully Loaded
Hahahahahahahahaha!

Blockbusters

Big budget blow outs, run away hits, and happy Hollywood endings. Good, bad, or ugly, these movies did great at the BO.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
The force was strong with this one. I guess it was the best of the prequels, and maybe it was a good movie, but even if it was George Lucas farting on a Jawa, I don’t think any Star Wars fan could resist the lure of the final installment.

Wedding Crashers
Another hit from the Frat pack. R rated comedies are back in a big way, and Wedding Crashers made a killing despite its budget, which was bloated by comedy standards.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith
I think Hollywood may have stumbled upon a new formula: Put the two most beautiful people on the planet in tight clothes and have the shoot at each other. Oo la la. Again, probably a bad movie, but I don’t think anybody went to see this expecting a cinematic master piece.

Red Eye
Another surprise hit. The trailer met a lukewarm reception, but people are coming out to see it. Wes Craven’s name does mean a lot, and the terror at 30,000 feet aspect makes it a pretty big draw. Plus, from what I hear it’s full of explosions at the end.

The 40 Year Old Virgin
Another big R-rated comedy. Sometimes gross, but doesn’t go too far. Packed with great jokes, and a surprisingly interesting and likable cast of characters. It’s always cool when an oddball movie like this one becomes a runaway hit. A little more mainstream then, say, “Napoleon Dynamite,” but not what you’d expect to be one of the best reviewed films of the year.

Hidden Gems

A few films that you might not have heard about but might be worth a look.

The Aristocrats
This dirty little documentary amused and disgusted audiences all across America. No violence, no nudity, but unparalleled obscenity. Not for the weak of heart, that’s for sure, but it’s an amazing showcase of comedic talent none the less. Robin Williams, Gilbert Godfreid, Drew Carry, and… yes.. Bob Sagat among others line up to tell the dirtiest joke imaginable again and again and again…

Murderball
One of the best documentaries of the year, filled with humor, excitement, and sentiment. It’s about wheelchair-bound rugby players. Yes, you read that right. And they’re all farking crazy.

That’s it for this year’s Summer Movie Recap. I hope you enjoyed it and found it enlightening. Hopefully I put some box office issues into perspective for you and gave you a good sense of what came out this year, what might be causing the box office receipts to slump, and, in context, what might change in the future. We’ll know more when the DVD rental returns come in, so stay tuned for more in-depth analysis at Kiosk.net.

What others are saying about the summer’s movies:

Charlie + the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds, Batman Begins

Batman Begins

March of the Penguins

STEALTH

Skeleton Key

A few good reviews

The Slump (Scroll down about 1/4 of the way)

Howl’s Moving Castle

The New York Times is there:

With the task so large, and so very complex, Hollywood is still grappling with how to broach solutions.

Mr. Lynton said he would focus on making “only movies we hope will be really good.” At Fox, executives said they are looking to limit marketing costs. At Universal, Mr. Shmuger said he intends to reassert “time and care and passion” in movie production. Some of his own summer movies, he conceded, should never have been made.

He declined to name them.

Amazing. Read the full NYT article here.

Update: How much does Hollywood suck and how much will it continute to suck in the future? More opinions.

Bad news for those looking for a unified HD-DVD format. According to Wired News, Sony and Toshiba couldn’t come to an agreement and have put off their “peace talks” indfefintely. This could mean a huge pain in all of our asses, at least if we want to view discs in High Definition. If the industry cannot band together behind one format, we might need two DVD players in every HD house, or half of all HD-DVDs printed may be unviewable.

The article is short, so here it is:

Wired News Report

09:31 AM Aug. 23, 2005 PT

Sony and Toshiba have failed to agree on a unified format for next-generation DVDs.

Talks have been suspended indefinitely between a group of companies led by Sony (SNE), which supports the Blu-ray format, and the Toshiba-led bloc, which backs the HD-DVD format. Sony’s Blu-ray disks have a more sophisticated format and play back 25 GB of data compared with HD-DVD’s 15, but are more expensive to produce.

Toshiba spokesman Junko Furuta acknowledged that a unified format did not look likely for the time being. Furuta also said the more sophisticated Blu-ray disks would be harder to adopt for use in laptop computers, as well as in car-navigation systems, also popular in Japan.

Both sides are already developing products that feature the respective DVD formats. Toshiba plans to roll out HD-DVD players by the end of this year, while Sony’s game console PlayStation 3, which will play Blu-ray disks, is due out in spring 2006.

Maybe its all just a ploy to sell more Play Station 3 units? Who knows? Maybe these guys?

An article in today’s New York Times has presented an interesting question and a few contrary positions on the future of video rental. Kiosk is there to take it frame by frame, play devil’s advocate, and, of course, opinionate. That’s what blogs are for.

Ever since Blockbuster and Movie Gallery opened their first video stores 20 years ago, predictions of their imminent demise have been as common as late fees.

The Barron’s columnist Alan Abelson deemed video stores a terrible business opportunity back in 1986. Five years later, the chief executive of the Pilgrim Group referred to Blockbuster as a “casket case,” adding that the video store would go the way of the dinosaur in three years.

And they were wrong of course. The doomsaying here was in part due to new viewing options like HBO and then Pay Per View movies. These viewing choices did catch on, but did not obsolete physical stores for a few reasons. First, as the NYT article goes on to profess, people like going to pick out their videos. Second, because Pay Per View and premium channels also came with a premium price. Third, neither PPV or HBO were all that convenient, since you still had to wait for a specific time and follow the programmers schedules.

The “drumbeat of doom for the traditional video rental store” has been renewed in the last year or two because the video stores face new challenges. Netflix and VOD services like Comcast’s on demand threaten to obsolete traditional stores much in the same way that PPV did. However, VOD (and Netflix, which will probably be debuting a VOD service with TiVo in the near future) is much more convenient than premium channels and PPV. Also, Comcast’s on demand service comes standard built in to all of their digital boxes, it does not cost extra.

In the future, all TV and movies will be viewable on demand, standard, conveniently, and easily. This is a much more serious threat than PPV was. Furthermore, a lot of people enjoy filling up their Netflix queue and get the same sort of satisfaction that many renters get from going to the store and browsing the physical selection.

“The idea that video stores are magically going to go away for some reason is misguided,” said Tom Adams, president of Adams Media Research, a research and consulting firm for the entertainment industry. “It is still the most popular way to watch movies.”

The number of DVD’s (and a dwindling number of VHS tapes) rented by the movie-loving public still dwarfs any other form of movie watching. According to Adams Media Research, there were nearly 3.2 billion rental transactions last year. By contrast, box-office admissions were less than half of that number, DVD sales totaled about 1.1 billion and there were fewer than 350,000 purchases of movies through video on demand or pay per view.

It may still be the most popular way to watch movies, but that doesn’t mean that it’s still the most profitable way to rent movies. Blockbuster and Movie Gallery, the two biggest movie rental chains, both posted losses last quarter, blockbuster $57 million and Movie Gallery about $12 million. Both chains promise increased revenue in the future, but of course they would say that wouldn’t they? Never in the past have the big movie rental chains seen this kind of revenue bleeding, so the question is, how much longer can these companies remain in business while operating at a loss? Market share is one thing, and of course they control the bulk of it, but market share is not profit, and business is about profit. There’s nothing “magic” about that.

But one obstacle lies in the path of movies on demand, and that is the Hollywood studios. Unwilling to sacrifice the cash cow of home video sales, the studios have shown no desire to close the “window” - or the time lag of about 45 days - between releasing movies on DVD and making them available to the cable operators. Currently, the studios get about 60 percent of the list price of new DVD’s, bringing in about $17 each. For each movie ordered by remote control, the studios get about $2.

And without the newest movies - the ones most popular with video renters - video on demand will be hard pressed to make a significant dent.

UPDATE: 1/9/06 FOX HAS CLOSED THE WINDOW BETWEEN VOD AND DVD. THANK YOU. NOW, BACK TO MY THOUGHTFUL AND WITTY RESPONSE.

This is a valid point that sees its roots in the fundamentals of economics. Movies are indeed becoming a commodity, and he who controls the means of production controls the society. The studios are still calling all the shots here, and the video rental business, though lately not so profitable for the renters, is still extremely profitable for the studios.

Expect some changes in how business is done in this realm in the near future. It could go one of two ways: First, studios could leak a bit more of their profits to the rental chains to keep them afloat, thus preserving their highest channel of revenue. This would be mutually beneficial to both parties. The other thing that could happen, is the studios could maneuver themselves away from the dying chains and onto VOD, Netflix, and big box stores like Wal-Mart, making these streams more profitable by negotiating the distribution rights. This second option seems pretty unlikely at present, seeing as the major studios are all staring like deer in the headlights at the demise of traditional media, but in the future it will become necessary to their survival. If chains like Blockbuster are to survive, they must either reduce costs and find their niches, or continue to adapt into a new animal all together. Yet, the more new business initiatives they undertake (see the failure of their Blockbuster Online stratagem) the more revenue they will continue to bleed. This is exactly what they don’t want to do, so Blockbuster may be in a Catch 22 on this issue.

Movie Gallery is taking the alternate route; instead of adapting they are reinforcing their traditional business model. This is interesting in a couple of ways. The most interesting factor here is that unlike Blockbuster, they did not shell out over $100 million dollars on new business initiatives and a marketing campaign to support them, but like Blockbuster they still posted a loss. They leveled their finger even more steadily at Hollywood to take the blame, but of course this is absurd. The truth is that Movie Gallery it also staring into the headlights of new media, and they’re going to find themselves extinct as well unless they downsize and find a niche. This is an interesting reversal with the current VOD and online services like Netflix, but is necessary to prolong the company’s life.

Stay tuned to this blog for more on this as it develops. We’ll see which position is right, and whether the big chains will adapt, persevere, or die out.

If you can’t read the NYT article, click here for the syndicated version at The Mercury News.

DirecTV announced Friday that it will stop marketing TiVo as its digital video recorder service, opting to market its own DVR after a long troubled relationship between the satellite TV giant and the flagship digital video recorder. DirecTV announced earlier this year that it would begin selling its own DVR alongside TiVo, but this is the first time the company stated that it would stop promoting TiVo. Subscribers can still order TiVo until February 2007, but they’ll have to ask for the service specifically.

This could mean bad news for TiVo - 2.1 of TiVo’s 3.3 million subscribers came from DirecTV, and in the three months ending April 30th, 77 percent of TiVo’s new subscribers were DirecTV subscribers. But TiVo has already struck deals with Comcast and the National Cable Television Cooperative, which respresents 1,000 independent cable operators across the country, for a total of 35.5 million potential new subscribers.

Well, it’s been a while since I fired up the old Media Box, and I think we’re well past due for another exciting episode of This Week in DVR. So let’s dust off this sucker and see what we’ve got, shall we?

Beep boo boo bee beep boo beep boo, Beep boo boo bee beep boo beep boo. Beep. Boop. Boop.

Baseball on demand!

Remember our old friends Akimbo? A while ago when they started up, they had one major problem, a lack of any interesting content. Networks were hedgy about supplying digital access to their materials and few major production companies were dealing with the little VOD box that could. Well, things are starting to change for Akimbo now that they are landing more and more content deals. The latest? Yup, Major League Baseball. You won’t be able to catch the Sox game on Akimbo any time you like (although you could always TiVo it…) but you will gain access to some interesting stuff, namely about 15 minutes of highlights of each of yesterday’s games, full broadcasts of historically important MLB games, player profiles and biographies, MLB histories and some other good stuff.

Previously this content was only available online via the MLB’s website to subscribing members.

Now, this may not be a killer ap, but for a service whose best sports offering was previously Chinese cricket matches… it’s a big step in the right direction.

So now that Akimbo is getting some interesting material on their box, what’s next? Maybe getting a few more people to subscribe. What began as a niche service, catering to the folks out there that wanted Chinese cricket, is fast becoming a major VOD player. I still don’t think I would become an Akimbo subscriber, but I kind of like the quirky service, and if things keep going the way they do, their special brand of video on demand will keep looking better and better.

More on the Akimbo/MLB deal here.

Cleverest Headline award goes to…