# NewsCorp CEO Would Gouge D* Subs for New HD Movies



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*HDTV Viewers Are "Desperate"*

News Corp. president *Peter Cherin* says his company is likely to charge
$25-30 to watch a *single* high-def film.

News Corp. President and COO Peter Cherin told a financial conference
yesterday that his company is talking to cable and satellite operators
about charging *$25-30 to watch a movie in HDTV* 60 days after
its theatrical release.

Asked if the cost seemed high, Cherin said that some high-def owners
would be *"desperate consumers"* because there is relatively little
HDTV programming available on cable and satellite.

He noted that more than one million Americans last year spent more than
$25,000 on Home Theater set-ups. Those viewers in particular, Cherin
said, would be ideal *targets* for the high-priced HDTV movie.

Yes, there is relatively little high-def programming available. But *who's
fault* is that? (bolding added)

Read more on this disgusting development at www.tvpredictions.com/

(Correction: Mr. Chernin is the COO, not the CEO as incorrectly stated in the inalterable title of this thread.)


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Gee it only costs 10 bucks in the theater. What the hell are they smoking!!!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

A couple of minor clarifications. The article does not specifically target D* subs. They apparently think that they can get cable ops (and perhaps E*) to go along. And Mr. Chernin is the COO not the CEO. The CEO is Rupert Murdoch.

I am not even an HD sub but I too hope this fails. Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

$10 a PERSON at the theaters.... 

I just went and saw Curious George this weekend.
Had a free coupon for my son... but I still dropped $25 for my wife, and "snacks"

$25-$30 for an HDTV quality, in my home, less then 2 month old Theatrical release.. Where my family can enjoy it, (my wife, son, extended family, and friends)

It could easily become a Family/Friends party on a regular basis.
$30 is a good price IMHO for something like that.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ...$30 is a good price IMHO for something like that.


Point taken, Earl, and you can even charge friends for admission and snacks to recoupe your costs.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Nick said:


> Point taken, Earl, and you can even charge friends for admission and snacks to recoupe your costs.


I would never charge for admission.....

Just you best have something in your hand in the form of a 6 pack, or peperroni to get in the door...


----------



## NVBlue (Aug 4, 2005)

Nobody would buy at those prices.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

NVBlue said:


> Nobody would buy at those prices.


Then I guess I am a Nobody...

I have pretty much stopped going to the movie theaters because of the cost.
(Only went to see Curious George as we had the coupon for my son, and we figured it would be a good first theater movie for him)

I can EASILY see people willing to pay $25 to watch it at home.

Why? Around here, in Chicago Land....

It is a MINIMUM of $9.50 to go to a Friday Evening movie.

Combo Deal #1 (Two Drinks and a Large Popcorn) $10.50

That is basically $29.50 or $30 for a couple to go see a movie... Mix in the Babysitter fees, Dinner, The time away...

Don't get me wrong... I love going to the theaters... but...
If I can stay at home and get even MORE usage out of my home theater system...

Bingo... ESPECIALLY if this is done in a VOD style or via the DVR where I can take it down when it is available, and then watch it when I want to.


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

It certainly sounds plausable for a party with 4-6 people. I wonder if they will let us PVR these events?

This could be another step in the direction of the extinction of all physical media.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Here is the more in length article:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002076585


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I didn't like the reported attitude where HD subscribers are considered "desperate." (If we're desperate, then apparently there's a need which means economic opportunity....hello.)

Still, $25 doesn't seem that bad of a deal to me. The key factor is 60 DAYS AFTER RELEASE. Some people might be willing to pay that price for being able to see the movie that soon after release. For a family of four to see a movie, that would be a bargain.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> $10 a PERSON at the theaters....
> 
> I just went and saw Curious George this weekend.
> Had a free coupon for my son... but I still dropped $25 for my wife, and "snacks"
> ...


Kinda reminds me when I was in college when my residence hall would show movies. The fun ended when the movie studios found out they were showing the movies for nothing and said "you can't do that as rental movies are not to be shown to a crowd no larger than the 'family unit' ". They threatened to sue unless the residence hall paid an additional fee.

How long do you think it'll take before the movie companies start doing the same thing here? Or has the law about this changed already?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> How long do you think it'll take before the movie companies start doing the same thing here? Or has the law about this changed already?


I don't think there was a "law" about it.
I think it had to do more with the license agreements for those movies (we had a similar program in our dorms... but we had to pay $100 a month for the movies)

I am sure there will be some "rules", but unless they are handing out webcams, theater screen glasses... how the heck are they going to enforce it?


----------



## YankeeFan (Jan 31, 2006)

NVBlue said:


> Nobody would buy at those prices.


Agreed. For $25 I would wait for the DVD to come out, buy and still have 5 bucks left over for snacks


----------



## 430970 (Nov 21, 2005)

I might pay $10 for a HD PPV if it were available that quickly after theatrical release, but no more. Yes, I know movies are expensive, but the screen and sound are great, and I like getting out of the house. My setup isn't "theatrical" enough to eliminate going to the movies for me (Disclaimer: We don't have kids, I know it's different for people with big familes).

I also know that DVDs aren't HD quality, but at 480p, they're much better than SD, pan-and-scan PPV. Plus, with Netflix, the rental cost is less than $4/rental (esp. if you watch a lot). Plus, the "DVD window" is shrinking to the point where movies will be available on DVD 3 months after theatrical release. So I can handle waiting an extra month and getting my pick of DVD-quality to save $25.

I think this whole issue is why "On Demand" is such a big threat to Netflix, Blockbuster, D*, etc. If there was a on-demand library as big as netflix's DVD selection, I'd bet a lot of people would pay a subscription fee of $25/month to be able to rent (say) 5-8 movies/month.


----------



## ajseagles3 (Feb 17, 2006)

If I want to see something bad enough (which is rare), I'll go to the theater.

No way in hell I'd pay more than the monthly cost of Netflix to see ONE movie in HD on my TV. I'd wait for DVD every single time.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, so far I'm not even willing to spend the bucks for HD (TV or service). I had seriously considered it, and decided it wasn't worth the cost.

I also do not buy regular pay per view; I think they are too costly. If I can't find something on the premium channels that I do subscribe to, then I'll rent a dvd for $0.99 at the local supermarket.

So it goes without saying that I'm not going to pay $10 or $25 for a ppv.

Carl


----------



## DaveTinNY (Nov 8, 2004)

They can kiss my ass.... Wait 'til HD DVD (or BLUERAY) arrives. Then I'll spend more money on HD movies that I can _own_.
Heck, with Netflix and progressive scan DVD player piped into my 38" tube HDTV, the picture is _excellent_. I don't know what this guy is thinking about.
I'll watch the old HDNET MOVIES before spending that type of cash on a high def pay per view. I can afford it too; it's just highway robbery.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

ajseagles3 said:


> If I want to see something bad enough (which is rare), I'll go to the theater.
> 
> No way in hell I'd pay more than the monthly cost of Netflix to see ONE movie in HD on my TV. I'd wait for DVD every single time.


Yep, Netflix works for me. Nothing is worth that price.


----------



## Tom J (Jan 24, 2004)

Mr. Cherin's comments only serve to confirm my perception of how News Corp views its customers and consumers in general.

Besides, with "hundreds" of national HD channels available how will I possibly find the time to watch a $30 movie.  

Tom J


----------



## wipeout (Jul 15, 2003)

Instead of screwing us with this $25 HD movie crap, how about giving us more HD channels. Then maybe we wouldn't be so "desparate".


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

wipeout said:


> Instead of screwing us with this $25 HD movie crap, how about giving us more HD channels. Then maybe we wouldn't be so "desparate".


Like with Enron, it's nothing but greed - all about the $$$ -- _your_ money!


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Nick said:


> Like with Enron, it's nothing but greed - all about the $$$ -- _your_ money!


That seems a little extreme, don't you think? You almost always pay more for a premium service and seeing a movie in HD just 2 months after theatrical release would be a premium service.

Early adopters of new technology pay lots more than those who are willing to wait. As an example, the TV I hope to buy soon has gone down in price about 25% since it first came out last year. People that bought it new weren't "gouged." They simply paid a premium price in order to have the latest version of a product. In the movie case, they would be offering a product that is not available on DVD at a time when the buzz is still strong from it's theatrical release. This is a service that we've not had before.

It all comes down to whether people are willing to pay a premium price for a premium product.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

They are not asking for too much if they can find somebody to pay for it.

Earl is in line with his wallet open for the reasons that he listed. Others are not ready to pay. The market will take care of it.

I'm a Netflix user and it works for me. $17.99 a month for 10~20 movies on avarage. There is no way I'm paying $25 for a single PPV movie.


----------



## rabit ears (Nov 18, 2005)

I think koji68 is absolutely correct, however, I think the market correction will come a lot sooner than the folks at DTV think. As a case in point, we have the launch of Movielink, a service that bypasses the postal service and downloads movies directly to a STB. At the present time, Movielink pricing is only slightly above that of PPV and the STB allows an inventory of 100 movies available for instant viewing.

The real concern that I have has to do with DTV itself. In the last year we've seen an increasing aptitude on the part of DTV executives for shooting themselves in the foot. Pronouncements like the $25 movie rental make us really wonder if the people from News Corp. have any real business sense at all. I've been a long term subscriber to DTV and initially I was a big booster, but now, I'm not so sure. 

Murdock has made his money in mature, low tech industries selling product into an unsophisticated marketplace. I think competing directly with Silicon Valley and Hollywood is going to expose both his lack of scruples and intellect. The shame is that in the process he's going to destroy a business model with a tremendous future potential.


----------



## Larry_Rymal (Jan 15, 2006)

durl said:


> I didn't like the reported attitude where HD subscribers are considered "desperate." (If we're desperate, then apparently there's a need which means economic opportunity....hello.)....


Not desperate, either. For me, I'm wanting movies, etc., on DVD in HD format. Then I'll have to start rebuilding my library again. :nono2:

Heck, I don't even subscribe to the premo movie channels (HBO, TMC, etc.). I just want all programming to be in HDTV format, wide screen.

I'm probably the minority...


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

DTV = Digital TeleVision
D* = DirecTV


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

koji68 said:


> Earl is in line with his wallet open for the reasons that he listed. Others are not ready to pay. The market will take care of it.


And it is not like I am going to "purchase" everyone that comes down either...

Looking at the list of movies at my local Theater right now..... not a single one intrests me... $30 HD or not....

Now X3 and some of the other Summer releases....

You can only see so many in the theaters.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

rabit ears said:


> The real concern that I have has to do with DTV itself. In the last year we've seen an increasing aptitude on the part of DTV executives for shooting themselves in the foot. Pronouncements like the $25 movie rental make us really wonder if the people from News Corp. have any real business sense at all. I've been a long term subscriber to DTV and initially I was a big booster, but now, I'm not so sure.


I agree to a point. New Corp and DTV folks do know business. They are making $$$ whereas Tivo isn't, not yet. But, those same folks have no idea what their customers will buy.

No I will not pay $25 for an HD, basically early PPV movie. Netflix works fine for me. They may know their business models and such, but do not understand that fact that no customer want to commit to a lease program for 24 months when no other provider requires such.

There's probably a clause they'll write into purchasing a HD movie that requires to commit to 24 months or purchasing more HD movies. What they have right now makes no sense.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Nick said:


> DTV = Digital TeleVision
> D* = DirecTV


In your book.

There was an EchoStar. There was a PrimeStar. There NEVER was a DirecTVStar.

I reject you reality and substitute my own!


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

You folks don't remember when Top Gun was a $100 VHS tape, or Laser Disc. People would buy at that price. Not many, but the margin at a high price allows you to charge high prices for the people who want the movies without waiting for the DVD. 

You are not trying to replace the revenue stream from DVD or normal pay per view. You are trying to enhance your stream with another delivery method.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Wolffpack said:


> In your book.
> 
> There was an EchoStar. There was a PrimeStar. There NEVER was a DirecTVStar.
> 
> I reject you reality and substitute my own!


Actually DTV is the ticker symbol for DirecTV so it is actually a more common abbreviation than D*.


----------



## rabit ears (Nov 18, 2005)

Nick said:


> DTV = Digital TeleVision
> D* = DirecTV


Dude,

As you can see from my picture (I'm the one with the rabit ears, the other one is my *****) I don't have thumbs. I can't do the shift thing on a keyboard - and changing channels on those little remotes is really difficult.

Cut me some slack, please.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rabit ears said:


> Dude,
> 
> As you can see from my picture (I'm the one with the rabit ears, the other one is my *****) I don't have thumbs. I can't do the shift thing on a keyboard - and changing channels on those little remotes is really difficult.
> 
> Cut me some slack, please.


At least she is a blond....


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Tom J said:


> Mr. Cherin's comments only serve to confirm my perception of how News Corp views its customers and consumers in general.
> 
> Besides, with "hundreds" of national HD channels available how will I possibly find the time to watch a $30 movie.
> 
> Tom J


I'm glad I'm not with DirecTV. Thats a gigantic RIPOF!!


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

Wow I know I can seriously say I wouldn't pay $30 or $25 or $20. Charge me $10 and I will bite. Outside of that the length of time between theater and DVD will make me hold. Especially with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on th scene now. I can just wait, till I can buy or better yet rent the movie. I wince paying $12.95 in a hotel and only do it every once in a GREAT while.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Paul Secic said:


> I'm glad I'm not with DirecTV. Thats a gigantic RIPOF!!


Why would it be a ripoff?
Considering it would be a PPV model... So you (as a customer) would select the option, knowing the price, and what you would get for it.

No different then purchasing movie tickets for a theatrical release, and dropping $20 at the concession stand.... it is your choice to spend the money or not.

Still Depending on the movie... $30 to be able to watch it on my couch, on my time table.... would still be cheaper then me and my wife going to dinner and a movie (which on average would cost about $100)

You make dinner for the wife (score brownie points)
You able to enjoy the left over wine or beverages from dinner during the feature film.
You don't have to worry about parking, bad seats, stale popcorn, other people's phones, pagers, kids, ects...

No late night driving after the movie is over....

Gosh... reading that back, i almost sound like a MasterCard commercial....

"Priceless"

----------
Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't be popping one of these ever weekend.
But on occasion.....

And as everything else... If it grabs on and is more popular, maybe that time frame shinks from 60 days to 30 to 14 days... price goes down...
Who knows...

But back to the original point....
Why would it be a ripoff ? If you ultimately choose if you want to pay it or not?


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why would it be a ripoff?
> Considering it would be a PPV model... So you (as a customer) would select the option, knowing the price, and what you would get for it.
> 
> No different then purchasing movie tickets for a theatrical release, and dropping $20 at the concession stand.... it is your choice to spend the money or not.
> ...


When you an find me a screen the size of whats at the movies and a house i can fit it in I will agree. Outside of that some things just have to be seen on that huge screen.

I think they are basing the price on the fact thats it's HD and that HD is still considered to be a people with money market so they can afford it.

Well while I may be able to afford it I don't like to waste my money and I think going out to a movie while it may be around the same price or slightly more for 2 is far more entertaining then sitting on my couch.

Just my opinion though


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Well yah... missing out on the 30ft screen...

But the 50" Plasma, and sitting ontop of the subwoofer with 7.1 sound system, kinds takes the edge off a bit... 

My example was probably one that wouldn't happen... as we both like to go out.
It would probably me more of a case where my Sis-In-Law was in for the weekend, my brother-in-law was bored, and was over... mix in our good friends... we would have 6 or 7 people in watching it probably...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I hate movie theaters, I’d rather watch a movie the movie in the comfort of my own home, by myself. Away from other people, ringing cell phones, crying babies, talking , etc. Other then School of Rock and Jackass that a friend of my dragged me to the last movie I saw in a theater was Men In Black, before that was The Mighty Ducks. There was that Imax movie I saw on vacation in Detroit in 2001. 

For the price none of it was worth it, don’t care how big the screen is or what DTS soundtrack the theater uses, unless it’s Imax it’s not worth it.

I’d rather do HD On Demand with iControl. All current PPV movies are offered in high def at $3.95/movie and you can pause, ffw and rew and have 24 hours to watch the movie. No need to wait for the next showing, I just go to ch 1090 find a movie hit select a few times and boom it’s on when I want it to be.


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

I can't see people paying $35 to watch a single movie, expecially when they can own a hd dvd for cheaper. I would much rather go to the theater and have a nice night out. Expecially the hollywood blvd were I can get dinner and a movie for that price.


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> There was that Imax movie I saw on vacation in Detroit in 2001.


Vacation in Detroit? Brave man. :lol:

I'm from there originally so I can diss them. 

I like movies but even if I didn't I can't see myself paying that much money just to watch a movie. With Netflix, Blockbuster, normal PPV, the cables On Demand stuff the prices they are tossing around are just way out of the ballpark. Like I said max I would go would be the $9.95 are and even then I would have to be pretty desperate to pay that. Make it even like $5.95 and I am WAY more likely to see it and go ehhh what the heck and purchase it.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Most of the time we were in Dearborn, nice area. We’re a big Ford Family so it was only right  The iMax was at the Henry Ford Museum and Village. They had 3 movies, one with NSync, a NASCAR one and Everest. Nsync wasn't a consideration, the NASCAR one was sold out, so Everest it was. AMAZING! I even had it on DVD, and saw it a few weeks about on InHD2. It looks great, but not the same as the first time I saw it


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

Excellent model for profits. Charge a bunch of money and bleed them dry until you hear the backlash and then reduce prices then people will think they are getting a bargain. Then you'll get more people to buy because they wont think they are being ripped off. 

Being biased against movie theaters, my views are slanted of course. But it seems to be that there is a huge population that insists on being the first to see a movie (to impress friends, talk about, am curious about, etc) and enjoys the social aspect of it, babies, cell phones, getting out etc.... These people can't wait for the movie to come out on hbo or even ppv and pay the 10 bucks at the theater for the entire experience, good or bad. then there's a group of people that wont go to the theater but do wish they could see the movies sooner than they come out on video.

So the people that hold the rights to the movies figured they can charge more money so these "fringe" people, who dont like theaters, can pay 60 days after release because they dont want to go to theaters, yet want to see the movie before it goes to HBO etc. I think it's brilliant and the perfect example of supply vs demand. It also fills the need for the market that refuses to go to a theater, yet wont wait the year for the video, and now they have a new revenue stream. 


however, on the other hand, if their own research shows that 1 million spent more than 25K on a home theater, do they really think it's just a 2 seat area and that there wont be parties and other hoards of people around getting the movie for 'free'? (and thus can possibly hurt their bottom lines in a hurry?) Their logic doesnt make sense and per the above stories about the dorm, i can almost see the disclaimer on the front of the movie now (only your family may view this or this will self destruct and we will send you a bill)

in the end, as stated above, if you dont like it, dont buy it. Period. We aren't talking food and water here. we are talking movies. It's not a necessity. Though I do get a kick out of the ads touting radio as being fee when all our other entertainment needs have skyrocketed. There ARE no entertainment needs..only wants. Stupidest commercial I've heard in a while.


----------

