Its about time: Apple brings bonus content to iTunes movies

If you were on the internet at all on Wednesday you probably were having load-time issues because everyone was F5ing a bunch of pages to get the latest from that day’s Apple event. There wasn’t the anticipated news that Beatles albums would be available on iTunes but there was lots of hoopla around new features for various versions of Apple’s iPod.

There was also the announcement that select movies within iTunes would be bundled with bonus content (Video Business 9/9/09) akin to what’s available on DVD under the iTunes Extra banner.

Bonus content will include what you’d expect from DVDs, meaning documentaries and trailers. The movies with Extra material will be priced the same as they otherwise would have, a sign that distribution costs are falling since there’s no need to bump up the price to send more information to the consumer.

This is the kind of thing Scott Kirsner was asking about last month and it’s going to be interesting to see what the consumer adoption of digital extras actually winds up being. Are they a holdover of the DVD age or is there a place for them in digital distribution models? I’m not sure there’s an answer about that yet but I’m sure one will emerge.

Personally I’d be interested to see how these things evolve. I have a hunch that that same sort of pre-packaged featurettes aren’t going to be as popular when they’re *meant* to be watched on a computer screen so will probably have to begin incorporating more interactive features, something that’s been part of the promise of next-gen DVD formats like Blu-ray. See recent stories about up-to-date IMDb information on the cast and crew being available (Video Business 9/10/09) to buyers of X-Men Origins: Wolverine as an example of what I’m talking about. When people watch something online I think there’s the implied promise it will be interactive to some extent and efforts like Apple’s will eventually have to cater to that.

Theater chains pull newspaper movie listings

As if newspapers weren’t smarting enough from the loss of classified and real estate listings and the revenue that comes from those, now comes a report that two of the biggest theater chains have begun scaling back their movie listings in print papers.

According to Editor and Publisher, Regal Entertainment Group and AMC Entertainment – the top two theater chains in the U.S. – have either reduced or cut completely the listings in print papers. Instead they’re directing ticket buyers to online ticketing services, which don’t charge for listings but instead take a cut of the ticket price for their revenue. Basically theater chains, which are seeing their own web traffic rise, feel there’s more value in continuing to promote their own sites as a hub for people online than there is in continuing to pay for newspaper listings, despite the argument that such listings have benefits in terms of consumer awareness.

What’s most interesting to me in this story from a media industry point of view is that it’s a case where newspapers are not losing money to a service that duplicates an area they’ve dominated but in a cheaper and more user-friendly way, as in the case of classifieds shifting over to craigslist. Instead these movie listings are now moving over to “legitimate” businesses that are working with the exhibitors. That’s a very different foe to go up against since Fandango, Moviefone and the other ticketing services actually have revenue models and are partners with the theaters, not just upstarts who come in and seemingly swipe ad money by offering for free the services the newspaper used to be paid to provide. - Chris Thilk: MMM

Competing formats, bonus material under consideration by music industry

From Movie Marketing Madness: Various reports have come out about moves being made by the music industry – including Apple – as they seek to shore up sales not just of single songs but of full albums.

As Epicenter rounds-up, Apple and the major labels seem to each be working on their own formats for full albums that would be loaded with bonus content, creating an incentive to purchase that complete album instead of just a single at a time as has become the norm among buyers. The two formats don’t seem to be, as Van Buskirk at Epicenter says, at war since the parties are working together to some extent and the different formats are likely going to be used in different stores.

This story dovetails nicely with a question Scott Kirsner posed the other day when he asked what the future of “DVD extra” material is in the age of digital distribution. The two options he offers are that they will be folded into the movie’s online marketing campaign or that some will be offered for free but others (particularly those with high production costs) will be available as a la carte offerings for a buck or two on top of the film itself.

In the comments on Scott’s post I came down on the side of these features being made available during the marketing campaign, but on a staggered schedule that supports not only the movie’s theatrical (or other initial) release but then as a way to continue the conversation about the movie into its home video or secondary release life.

For the music industry I think the best thing that could be done is to go back to the traditional 45 LP, cassette single model: When someone buys the most popular song of the moment they get a B-side from the album as well, giving them a “free” taste of the rest of the album and thereby giving them a stronger reason to complete the album.

But I think it’s interesting that both the music and movie industry seem to be re-thinking the value proposition of additional content. What needs to be stated, though, is that in order to truly become a factor in the consumer decision making process additional content needs to have as much value as the core content itself. That can be value in the form of replay-ability or in the form of social capital, something that gets peers talking to each other on the same level that core content does.

That’s why I think free bonus material is a better model.

Imagine if, when you bought a song on iTunes you were given the option to subscribe to a video podcast by the artist. (Or you can use movies or books or whatever in this idea as well.) So you listen to the song and then a week later you get the latest episode of the podcast delivered to you and think “The song they played in that episode was pretty good.” and you go buy that. After a song or two you’re probably going to go ahead and just buy the rest of the album.

Regardless of the model there’s obviously a place for bonus material that supports and enhances the core content being sold. It’s just a matter of figuring out how that best works out.

Even more restrictions added to the home video rental market

from movie marketing madness:

So Warner Bros. not only wants to join Universal and 20th Century Fox in withholding its new releases from Redbox rental kiosks for a month (28 days, to be exact) after the hit home video, but it also is seeking to renegotiate its contract with Netflix along similar lines.

Great, good idea. Let me know how that works out for you, when people go to Netflix, realize they can’t get the latest Harry Potter movie there. I’m sure that won’t at all be “What do you mean I have to wait a month?” followed by a sour feeling toward both WB and the movie specifically.

This whole discussion seems to be predicated on the idea that the decision between buying and renting puts those two options on equal footing. As if consumers see both as equally viable options and it’s kind of a toss-up based on availability.

Only it’s not. Renting and purchasing are very different. Very few people are going to see a movie is unavailable at their rental outlet of choice and think “Oh, well then I’ll just go buy it.” That’s not where their head is at. They want to see the movie (for the first or repeated times) and then be done with it. If someone’s in the mood to buy, they will. If they’re in the mood to rent and can’t, they’ll become what are commonly called “dissatisfied customers.”

Not only that, but all this has me wondering what percentage of DVD sales are actually the result of a previous rental. As in, someone rented the movie (once or multiple times) and then decided it was worth buying. So by making a movie unavailable where and when people want to get it at the moment its hype is at its second greatest peak (theatrical release being the first greatest) is there the potential that sales are actually being hurt?

I’m all for a lot of experimentation in this new media age as companies seek to find the model that works for them and for consumers. But generally those experiments err toward making something over-available and then pulling back based on results, not by creating artificial scarcity.

Chris Thilk Dismisses that “Twitter effect”

Here’s my biggest problem with all the emphasis and analysis that’s been devoted to Twitter and its perceived impact on movie marketing efforts: It’s the very definition of missing the point. Any studio that’s now throwing someone full time at Twitter with nothing else is probably missing half of, if not more, of the conversation. I’m not just talking about blog monitoring here, I’m talking about Flixster. I’m talking about Facebook. I’m talking about the dozen other places that people can post their opinions about the movie they just saw. Don’t focus on Twitter – focus on the online conversation. Do your research, figure out where the buzz around a movie seems to be centered. Figure out a conversation strategy that’s based on that research. Don’t get blinded by Twitter. Keep your eyes open for the whole thing.

- Chris Thilk (Move Marketing Madness)

Nothing ever really dies as long as there are People to remember it...

Chris Thilk over at MovieMarketingMadness.com has pointed out a wonderful thing:

(from Chris T @ MMM) There’s a cool self-organized movement afoot called MobMov. Using the site – and being sure to get permission from property owners and others – people are able to organize what are being called “guerilla drive-in” experiences. Basically they find a movie, find a place to screen it and then organize people to the screening, which has the feeling of a drive-in/tailgate party mixture. Love this idea. Love it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With hundreds of chapters across the globe, the Mobile Movie is bringing back the forgotten joy of the great American drive-in. Powered by cars and video projectors, "mobmovs" are easy and affordable to set up. Abandoned warehouse walls spring to life with the sights and sounds of a big screen movie. read more

MobMov.org has been in operation since 2005, and is the earliest "revival drivein" of it's kind. In fact, the term "MobMov", short for Mobile Movie, was originally coined by Bryan Kennedy, the founder of mobmov.org, to describe the unique "drive-in that drives-in" method he developed.

Today, MobMov.org is powered by do-it-yourself'ers like you across the globe, all joined together in the goal to bring drive-ins back, in a new, sustainable way. It's free to join and lots of fun.

People used to think "Drive Ins" would die out; they were wrong. The power of community is a formidable one.

http://mobmov.org/