Kiosk.net

It feels like its been a while since the movie theater industry gave us anything to talk about. Buying tickets online and picking them up at in-theatre kiosks or printing them out at home is pretty standard at this point; the model makes sense and doesn’t really leave that much room for improvement.

A recent partnership between Fandango and online advertising giant Pointroll, however, is an attempt to do just that. The goal of the partnership is to, by matching up Fandango’s ticket purchasing technology with Pointroll’s advertising wizardry, allow consumers to buy movie tickets directly through online adds in banners and animations (you know, the stuff that you let happen on your screen for the 2 seconds it takes to find the ’skip this ad’ or ‘close’ button, or the still pictures you simply ignore). Ultimately, this simply boils down to adding a Fandango link to adds. See the full story with comments from Pointroll CEO Chris Saridakis here.

I’m sure that this deal won’t really cost either company much money (again, all they’re doing is adding a link) and may even boost sales a bit. My reaction is…yawn. The only types of purchases for which I see this “direct advertising” model making much of a difference is with impulse-type buys. But movie tickets don’t really fall into this category. For starters, buying them commits you to being somewhere at a particular time and place, something no one really does on impulse (which is compounded by the fact that people don’t go to many movies alone–so you always got to check with someone else). I just can’t picure someone going “Wow…Big Momma’s House 3 is out! I better get tickets for Tuesday at precisely 7:35.”

What would be REALLY cool, however, is if you had the option of clicking on an add for a movie that just came out on DVD and getting it automatically put into your online movie rental queue. That is definitely more in line in with the impulsiveness that “direct advertising” is all about, although I don’t think it would ultimately be profitable for anyone by online rental companies.

According to HDTVUK, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sees no obvious winner in the on-going battle between the HD-DVD and Blu-ray disc formats. Consequently, Hastings has called for movie studios to support both formats, as there is no obvious victor in the battle between them.

Here is what Hastings had to say (via Cepro): “Our view is that the current format war is unwinnable by either Sony or Microsoft in the next several years. They are both powerful enough to maintain the stalemate. Hopefully, early next year the single format studios will join Warner and Paramount in becoming format agnostic. The press will declare the format war over and the consumer adoption cycle for High Definition DVDs will begin in earnest.”

HDbeat is quick to point out, however, that Blu-ray’s sluggish start and lackluster players are going to make it difficult to convince studios to back them. It will be interesting to see if this supposed “war” will go the way of the VHS/Beta-max battle of the 1980’s. My guess is that it will have to–can you think of an analogous technology in which two-formats could co-exist like Hastings thinks these are supposed to? The important thing to realize here is that the faster consumer confidence is restored in any Hi-Def DVD format, the better it is for Netflix.

Just passing along an interesting story written by Kelly Bit of the New York Sun about how traditional brick-and-mortar video stores are struggling to stay afloat.

What is common among all the successful ones is that they each claim to provide a customer service that Netflix does not. In many of these cases, the “something extra” is the supposed “human element,” which, when actually explained, seems to amount to nothing more than telling someone else to type words into a search engine instead of doing it yourself. What makes this explanation fishy, however, is that thile it is true that sometimes the most detailed description you can offer of a movie you want is not enough to search for it yourself, it is far from necessarily the case that a video store clerk will be able to help you. (The best part of one clerk’s explanation of this supposedly wonderful service is that he still gets the name of movie wrong while telling his heart-felt anecdote about one customer’s search for “Baby Geniuses 2″).

Speciality stores, of course, usually have more knowledgeable staffs and may even have titles that Netflix does not (especially if these haven’t been released on DVD), but this is what makes them speciality stores. Speciality stores can survive operating with outdated economic models because they have always, and will continue to have, niche markets. Their existence (and even success) says nothing about the survival of that out-dated model.

The most interesting explanation, however, of why some of these stores stay in business has to do with their locations. Most of their business is from neighboring residents, who visit the shops on-foot. Immediacy has always been the advantage of brick-and-mortar stores and it seems these that urban-residential locations are best able to live off of it.

Click the link above to read the full story.

The digital photography craze was spawned primarily by the increased affordability and accessibility of the technology, making digital cameras so commonplace that today, they are practically standard features on mobile phones (which is, as far as I’m concerned, pretty random).

The next step in this progression was the introduction of affordable digital video technology. Now, even the most basic digital camera (even those included on mobile phones) includes the ability to take short video clips. The ability to take a multitude of eraseable photos and shorter clips has changed the mindset of people looking to keep a record of important family moments. Now, people are much more casual in their use of photo and video devices; instead of carefully planned out poses and painstakingly long videos, people are shooting as many pictures and taking as much video as possible, and then picking and choosing what to print or record with the help of self-serve kiosks that have become pharmacy and supermarket staples.

The use of these kiosks for video production is, however, relatively new. As production software in the kiosks becomes better, consumers are able to put together DVDs, complete with music and graphical enhancements. Consumers are also able to post clips on the internet so that others can view them and even burn their own discs. Those cutting-edge enough to be able to do this on their home computers have enjoyed the advantages of digitial video for some time now, but the introduction of in-store kiosks extends this ability to practically everyone.

Click here for more information regarding video kiosk technology.

Despite earnings that were much stronger than those turned in a year ago and a 62% surge in subscriber growth, Netflix stock floated like a cannonball last night, as it dropped 20% during after-hours trading.

The problem: lower revenue due to the fact that more and more subscribers are signing-up for cheaper plans. It has also cost Netflix more on average to bring in new subscribers. In years past, Netflix spent about $38 for each new subscriber; in the last quarter, that number skyrocketed to nearly $44.

This is the result not only of price-cuts, but also of increased aggressiveness in terms of advertising expenditures, both of which are the result of heavy competition. Blockbuster’s adoption of a Netflix-esque rental model is the main reason behind the price drop, but Blockbuster is far from being Netflix’s main concern. The widespread adoption of video-on-demand by digital cable poses a much biggers threat to Netflix’s continual growth, as do online providers like CinemaNow and Movielink, who just announced that they will be allowing users to download movies that can be burned onto DVDs.

Here’s a prediction: CinemaNow and Movielink will not even come close to touching Netflix, at least not in the near future. Their movie download models take too long (thereby eliminating its convenience advantage) and are way too expensive (the movies cost about the same as they would from a retail store). The only way this model gains any substantial ground upon Netflix is if Apple (i.e. somebody who knows both what they are doing and how to market it) takes it on and improves the technology.

Video-on-demand from cable television providers, however, is currently a real problem for Netflix. Fortunately for Netflix it will always have the advantage of having a limitless library of DVD titles, too many to feed to a cable box hard-drive—but not too many to store on the internet. Once the downloading model is able to adapt the conveniences of the cable on-demand model, look out. I predict, however, that this will take some serious time.

Another possibility, however, is that Netflix itself gets in on developing better movie downloading technology.

I love blogs, I love the internet, I love rumors, and I love technology. Therefore, I love rumors about technology generated by blogs on the internet.

On a July 21st post, I passed on a rumor from thinksecret and slashfilm regarding a possibly impending announcement at Apple’s August Worldwide Developer’s Conference that iTunes would soon be offering rentable movie downloads. None of us will know, of course, whether or not this is true until the WWDC actually takes place, but that doesn’t have to stop us from speculating (isn’t that the whole point of blogging?).

Macworld editors Philip Michaels and Jim Dalrymple recently offered arguments supposed to, respectively, disprove and prove these rumors.

Michaels makes three arguments for why the announcement WILL NOT happen:

1) The WWDC is for industry techheads who are interested only in hardware developments. The MacWorld Expo is for consumer-oriented announcements. Movie rental downloads on iTunes full under the latter.
2) Netflix and cable provider models like Comcast’s OnDemand already offer features that are similarly convenient. It is not in Apple’s history to be a late-in-the-game bandwagon jumper.
3) iTunes is about BUYING and OWNING media, NOT RENTING, which is what the movie download offerings are rumored to center on.

Here are Dalyrmple’s counterarguments:

1) Apple developers are just as interested in consumer-oriented announcements as consumers. In fact, this is a major reason for Apple’s success. Furthermore, MacWorld is in January. Why would Jobs wait?
2) Itunes is more convenient than Netflix because it offers instaneous access to media. Period. This is not to mention the success of the limited television-based downloads already offered on iTunes.
3) Apple simply hasn’t been successful in persuading the movie industry to allow for the download-to-own model. Anyways, who is to say that that model would even be successful? After all, the video rental business came into existence for a reason: people only want to watch movies once and will therefore be less interested in spending more money to buy (rather than rent) movies.

Here is my take on the situation:

For starters, Michaels’ claim that the audience at the WWDC wouldn’t be interested in consumer-oriented announcements like this one is silly. Last time I checked, Apple is a business, thereby making EVERY announcement essentially “consumer-oriented.” Dalrymple is right to point out that Apple developers in particular are especially cognizant of this, which is why Apple always puts out the most user-friendly stuff. Even the most minor technical hardware changes at Apple are done with the user in mind. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that offering a new type of media through iTunes has no effect on what Michaels calls “under the hood developments.” It goes without saying that iTunes movie downloads spells changes for iPod technology.

Michaels’ claim that iTunes would somehow be “contradicting itself” by offering movie rentals because the store is “about” buying is also absurd. The force behind Dalrymple’s point is that video is an essentially different form of media from music. Like books, it lends itself well to one-time usage. This is why we even have video rental stores (and libraries). To suggest that Apple wouldn’t want in on this potentially lucrative market simply because iTunes is in some vague way “about” buying and not “about” renting is just plain bizzare. Does Michaels think that this is going to somehow offend consumers?

Ultimately, I do think, however, that Michaels is on to something with his second claim. I simply do not a current market for downloadable movie rentals. Dalrymple can talk about convenience over Netflix all he wants but this doesn’t address competition from cable providers (who already offer this same service) or the fact that people want to watch movies on their TVs, in their living rooms (which both Netflix and cable provider-based models allow them to do). Until fully centralized media centers that allow for easy linkages between computers, televisions, stereos, etc. become the norm (which they certainly are not right now), I don’t see the movie downloading business taking off. One could press the portability benefits offered by potentially upgraded iPods, but how many people watch videos “on the go”? Isn’t the whole point of a portable music player that you can use it while doing other stuff, like working out or travelling? If so, does it even make sense to think of video this way? Maybe people will watch movies on the subway, but how long is the average subway ride? And how many people are really interested in watching a movie during rush hour in a packed train?

These are, of course, reasons why downloadable movie rentals won’t take off, not factual reasons why Apple won’t offer them. If the overhead of the program is low enough, I could see Apple doing it, even if the profits of the program end up being meager in comparison to music sales (which I am convinced they will be). This is what the truth of the rumor rides upon. Of course, if anyone is going to perfect this technology, it will be Apple.

In any case, I don’t think Netflix or Comcast should be scared. In fact, if the latter were able to increase its library, I can not think of any reason why movie downloading would survive, given the touch-of-a-button capabilities of models like OnDemand’s. If this were to happen, of course, OnDemand would simply become what the movie downloading companies are striving to be.

The end result of all this will probably be some kind of amalgamation of all three models that will allow for both Netflix’s extensive selection and the convenience currently enjoyed by OnDemand users.

UPDATE: As problematic as some of his arguments are, Michaels was ultimately right; Jobs did not announce anything about movie downloading at the August WDC. See the story here.

After a year of development, Amazon is finally ready to unveil its new video downloading service sometime next month. Rumor has it that the service, which is called Amazon Digital Video (ADV), will be available in accordance with both a Netflix-style subscription model and with an Itunes-style download-to-own model.

Funny thing is, though, Amazon reportedly decided to focus upon video as a result of iTunes’ dominance of the downloadable music market. Maybe they should have checked with their old buddy Whiskers before making that decision (see July 21st post—Apple has the exact same plan).

The prediction: Apple’s internet video program blows their’s out of the water, just as it did for shoddy attempt at offering music downloads. Both will, however still get smoked for awhile by Netflix.

Thanks to ilounge and tuaw for the scoop.

Tommy Lee Jones’ directorial coming-out party is at worst a disaster and at best a swing-and-a-miss. The comic scenes aren’t funny, the dramatic scenes aren’t gripping, and key sections of the movie are neither insightful nor interesting. The result is a cliche-ridden unintelligent film that happens to benefit from pretty cinematography and a promising enough storyline to make you keep hoping that it gets better. Unfortunately, it never does.

Here’s the story: Mike Norton (Barry Pepper) is a border patrol agent who just took on a job in middle-of-nowhere Texas. While on patrol, he recklessly responds to gunshots he hears in the distance and unintentionally kills Melquiades Estrada (Julio Cedillo), an illegal migrant worker who was just trying to keep a fox or coyote or something away from his goats. Unfortunately for Norton, Melquiades worked for Pete Perkins (Jones) and had become his best friend. Doubly unfortunate for Norton is that Pete finds out he did it, kidnaps him, makes him dig Melquiades’ body up, and then take a ride through Mexico on horseback in order to bury the body in Melquiades’ home town.

This basic story has the potential to be a great Western morality play but it is dragged down into superficiality by watered-down writing (”21 Grams” writer Guillermo Arriaga is certainly not in top form here) and confused directing. One rightly expects the centerpiece of the film to be a long soul-searching journey, but these scenes deliver on nothing but length. Not a word of meaningful dialogue is ever exchanged on this multiple-day trip and no interesting moral questions are ever adequately addressed. What does Pete think about death and redemption? How would he respond if Norton told him what really happened (i.e. that Norton is at worst guilty of being irresponsible and jumpy)? Would it make a difference to him? What does Norton think of Pete’s brand of justice (beyond frequently shouting “you’re insane!”)? Before the kidnapping, we are given numerous well-acted and well-done scenes intended to express Norton’s remorse–but why doesn’t he tell this to Pete right off the bat? And since he does feel remorse, why does this remain a hostage situation? Doesn’t his own remorse suggest that he would eventually realize that this trip may spell redemption for him too? If he ever does realize what is going on, it is much too late in the film.

The problem here isn’t just that the film is too shallow (it is) but that it is also simply implausible. These unasked, unaddressed, and unanswered questions are obvious, not subtle. These two guys spend a LOT of time together, and Norton never really asks Pete what they are doing or why, never makes much of an effort to tell him what happened, takes way too long to express the remorse the audience knows that he has been long in feeling, is overly subservient to Pete, etc. Without reason, Norton is convinced that Jones’ character is ready to kill him, but the entire point of this trip requires that Pete keep Norton alive. It is as if the script keeps the Pepper character in the dark in order to either maintain this plot point or to avoid having to include thoughtfully relevant things that these guys would actually say to each other.

(And to claim that these two characters are simply too grizzled or laconic for even a simple moral discussion is not just a cop-out but is also patently ridiculous: during the course of the film, not one but BOTH are shown crying! Aside from this, no portion of the film has a gritty enough tone to even include such character types; it is more “Open Range” or “Lonesome Dove” than “Unforgiven” or “The Wild Bunch.”)

Furthermore, the kidnapping itself is hard to swallow. We are given no reason to believe that Pete is capable of this beyond the many scenes establishing his loyalty to his fallen friend. These scenes are enough to establish love and friendship, but do not even come close to suggesting that Pete has ever even committed an act of violence in his life.

The treatment of Norton as a character is just as confused. We are shown numerous instances of him being a jerk–his uncontrollable temper prompts him to beat up illegal immigrants; he is an unloving husband to his utterly-unnecessary-to-the-story-wife; he is probably racist–but NONE of these characteristics factor into the shooting. They simply make us not like Norton, similar to the the way that the pre-kidnapping scenes of Pete make us like him. The result is that the centerpiece of the film amounts to “Guy We Like is Moral and Does Right Thing / Guy We Don’t Like Learns a Lesson.” Flatly relying upon this formula is bad enough; but it’s worse when the equation doesn’t even balance out properly. If anything, Norton only really “learns” that “Mexican Immigrants are people too,” mostly in an horribly-eye-rolling piece of Symbolism that appropriately involves shucking corn (if intentionally comic–which is what I hope but don’t believe is the case–the scene is at best incoherently out of place). But since his racism has absolutely nothing to do with Estrada’s death, one wonders what the point of this “learning experience” is and what themes the movie really wants to address.

I suspect that the filmakers intended this to be “in part” a social commentary film, but failed to put their cards on the table. The result is a film that should have centered around two fully-developed characters but ends up being over-burdened with cheezy melodramatic sequences that are all but subtitled with “this is the Message.” The lesson here is that, if you are going to make an Issue picture, make an Issue picture; if not, then only address Issues insofar as this directly and naturally falls out of the experiences of, well-written, interesting characters. The anything-but-subtle “Crash” succeeds at the former; the refreshingly-free-from-melodrama, character-driven “Brokeback Mountain” succeeds at the latter. “Three Burials” succeeds at neither.

All of this is a shame, since the ending kind of works and the basic premise is fantastic. The film suffers from trying to address too many themes (included are: racism, small-town isolation, immigration, and personal responsibility) and ends up doing a movie-of-the-week level job with all of them. The story requires a simpler, more sparsely produced film that deals with the interesting moral questions that are naturally generated from its basic premise. It does not need the distracting side-stories involving local cops, Norton’s wife, and the waitress at the local diner–and it certainly does not need the Tarantino-esque non-linear narrative style that Arriaga put to better use in “21 Grams” but employs needlessly and distractingly here.

Much of Jones’ acting work has bascially relied upon second-rate imitations of Clint Eastwood and Harvey Keitel. He would have been better served by at least trying to copy the former’s directing-style as well; the simplicity that worked so well for “Unforgiven” and “Million Dollar Baby” would have done wonders with this material. Alas.

One-and-a-half out of four arbitrarily chosen stars.

According to a report from Lehman Brothers, Netflix’s growth has slowed down a bit, but is still expected to act as a catalyst for more and more retail rental store closures. Netflix’s turnover ratio (subscriptions-to-cancellations) for the second-quarter is expected to be around 3.9%, which is a drop from last year’s 4.7%. See the full story here.

This slower level of growth could mean several things. For starters, it could be a result of competition from the movie download business. In the near future, competition from movie downloading should increase (especially given the rumors surrounding Apple’s impending involvement), but analysts expect consumers to warm up to this model only gradually. This prediction makes sense, of course, since it will take time for more consumers to adopt better downloading hardware and for more movie companies to agree to licensing deals with service providers.

I tend to think, however, that this slower growth rate is ultimately a product of Netflix’s own success. As more and more people subscribe, the new subscription level is bound to top off at some point (Although it would be helpful here if we could get a better explanation of the smaller ratio, i.e. is it predominantly a product of there being fewer new subscribers or of there being more cancellations?). This is compounded by the fact that so many retail stores are going out of business. The advantage that Netflix offers over these stores is, in the first place, convenience (the second advantage is obviously selection; don’t even get me started on this one). If Netflix’s success resulted in there being even FEWER of these stores, it makes it more of a hassle to get to them, thereby making the brick-and-mortar rental model even MORE inconvenient.

In any case, the attempt made by some of these chains to take advantage of an online-based rental model is a clear-cut case of too little, too late. In this year’s first quarter, Netflix had a net increase of around 685,000 new subscriptions, while Blockbuster had a net increase of only around 100,000. Nice try guys. Maybe next year.

Supposed industry insiders are reporting that bossman Steve Jobs will announce an iTunes driven movie rental program that is intended to rival Netflix, Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, and other rental providers. Through iTunes, users will be able to download entire films onto their portable handheld devices and computers.

Jobs originally lobbied for a purchase program that mirrors iTunes’ music downloading program, but partners Universal, Disney, Paramount, and Warner Brothers all nixed the idea. Instead, users will download programs that are coded so as to “not work” after a certain amount of time, thereby mirroring the old fashioned video store rental model of rent-and-return.

Keep your ears and eyes open, and your downloading fingers ready, around the beginning of August. For more info, see thinksecret and slashfilm.