Criterion and Dual Format

[movielocke]

some people really are incapable of grasping that even if dual format means there is more in the case they purchased, overall the company they purchased the dual format release from is producing less because of the dual format.

***

Sort of related, I count about 283 spines with blurays, if you subtract the 65 out of print spines from the 681 total that makes blurays extremely close to half of the available collection, blurays are about 46% of the in print collection, which is much more than I would have expected!

[Drucker]

Oh, for crying out loud... I hope to god this dual-format policy does not last long. Waste is waste. If you have a blu-ray player, as most people do now, then you don't need the DVDs. If you only have a DVD player, then it might be time to go to Sears, Kmart, or Target and get yourself a $50 blu-ray player. I didn't expect Criterion to keep producing LDs when DVDs became popular and the format of choice. Grow/change or die. Soon another format will emerge and we'll be expected to convert over to it once it becomes cost effective to do so. I realize this... and BDs will go bye bye. I understand and expect this. I'm not going to expect Criterion or any other company to cater to my outdated whims.

Why don't you read what anyone else has to say? 1) People who are not cinema buffs are probably less likely to have a BD player and it won't affect their life at all. This way, we can use a DVD at their house/loan to them/etc. 2) People use DVDs on their laptops/desktop rather than saddling another room in the house with a full AV setup 3) most of your statements about Blu ray player popularity and cost are in dispute.

Your being miffed does not mean this is a bad move. But your being miffed seems to be your only reply.

[jindianajonz]

Oh for crying out loud. It's explained in one and two syllable words in Becker's article: it's the minimum print runs required for two different formats that causes the cost and wastage (which is what I said about the Zatoichi set when this was all first announced).

Also, if you're looking in the long term, a lot of people who bought the DVD on release may well also buy the BluRay when they upgrade their system. Even if that's a couple of years later, the net 'wastage' is the same.

Yes, but if before a 10,000 run of blu rays and a 10,000 run of DVDs was enough to supply customers for a year, now a 10,000 run of both would only supply customers for 6 months, and they would end up doing two pressings a year instead of one.

Bottom line is that (aside from Anthony) the customer base is staying the same; they are just giving every customer 2 discs rather than one.

[Jeff]

Yes, but if before a 10,000 run of blu rays and a 10,000 run of DVDs was enough to supply customers for a year, now a 10,000 run of both would only supply customers for 6 months, and they would end up doing two pressings a year instead of one.

I think that Criterion's point was that, in your scenario, instead of doing 10,000 Blu-ray packages and 10,000 DVD packages, they'll do 20,000 dual-format packages, which is much cheaper because they are ordering larger quantities. The bulk of Criterion's production costs are in packaging, not in the replication of the discs themselves. It's the packaging they're trying to reduce costs on.

[Anthony]

If Criterion wants to save money, maybe they should conduct business like TT... limit their releases to ONLY 3k or 5k units. Once they're gone, they're gone. Get 'em while they're hot folks!

if you are really concerned about waste, you won't buy physical media at all.

Hmmmm, now you are on to something. Apple to the rescue! \:D/

[Jeff]

I was in the middle of composing a lengthy response to the silliness, but realized Mr. Becker had already done so. If his response hasn't adequately explained how economies of scale work and why his company isn't willing to forfeit 40% of their annual sales by ceasing DVD production, nothing will adequately explain it. I'm going to spend my evening more productively by banging my head against the wall.

[knives]

Just today, I was forced by my work to burn and destroy 4 DVDs just because of security precautions and the government ban on flashdrives.

At my place of employment we destroy hundreds of BDs and DVDs a month for security reasons. Sometimes thousands.

I'm assuming these aren't commercial disks though, right?

[zedz]

Yes, but if before a 10,000 run of blu rays and a 10,000 run of DVDs was enough to supply customers for a year, now a 10,000 run of both would only supply customers for 6 months, and they would end up doing two pressings a year instead of one.

I think that Criterion's point was that, in your scenario, instead of doing 10,000 Blu-ray packages and 10,000 DVD packages, they'll do 20,000 dual-format packages, which is much cheaper because they are ordering larger quantities. The bulk of Criterion's production costs are in packaging, not in the replication of the discs themselves. It's the packaging they're trying to reduce costs on.

Though also implicit in Becker's article (if we assume as in your example that the optimal economic printrun is 10,000, which I expect is higher than the reality) was that, if Criterion expected a given title to sell only 12,000 units altogether, under the old model they would still have to print 10,000 Blus and 10,000 DVDs, and just hope that eventually they'd sell them all. Now they can actually print up 12,000, without being stung by inflated per-unit costs.

Also, the new system allows them to actually sell from the entirety of what is printed and not have to second guess what proportion of sales will be in which format. Under the old system, they could conceivably sell out of the first pressing of the BluRay edition of a given title and still be left with 5,000 DVDs that nobody wants to buy (or vice versa). That is wastage on a much greater scale than (boo hoo!) getting an extra disc in your case.

[Anthony]

I'm going to spend my evening more productively by banging my head against the wall.

I wouldn't buy a DVD to watch you do that... but if you stream it, now you've got a customer. ](*,)

[domino harvey]

Some of you are taking up valuable space on my internet with your posts

[jindianajonz]

Though also implicit in Becker's article (if we assume as in your example that the optimal economic printrun is 10,000, which I expect is higher than the reality) was that, if Criterion expected a given title to sell only 12,000 units altogether, under the old model they would still have to print 10,000 Blus and 10,000 DVDs, and just hope that eventually they'd sell them all. Now they can actually print up 12,000, without being stung by inflated per-unit costs.

Also, the new system allows them to actually sell from the entirety of what is printed and not have to second guess what proportion of sales will be in which format. Under the old system, they could conceivably sell out of the first pressing of the BluRay edition of a given title and still be left with 5,000 DVDs that nobody wants to buy (or vice versa). That is wastage on a much greater scale than (boo hoo!) getting an extra disc in your case.

Good point.
I said above, though, when given the choice between Criterion slightly reducing their carbon footprint or whatever metric you want to use, and Criterion rearranging their production to increase profits and give the customers more, I'm gonna choose the latter every time.

[cdnchris]

So their options to keep Anthony happy are:

1.) Drop DVD and lose 40% of their customers and all of the revenue with it (because if these people haven't upgraded to Blu they probably won't now)
2.) Keep the current format of both DVD and Blu-ray releases, but risk a rising per unit cost, cutting into their profits, while also risking large amounts of leftover stock
3.) A limited 3k run, which actually rises the per unit cost drastically while also drastically reducing their income and profits since they can only sell 3000 of them

or

4.) Go dual-format, dropping the per-unit cost, and keeping most of their Blu and DVD base, while also increasing profits... but lose Anthony as a customer

Hmmmmm...

[zedz]

Before I vote on the options, I want to know if Anthony, when he swears off all future Criterion purchases, will quit the forum at the same time.

[swo17]

Also bear in mind: Unlike when MoC was considering whether or not to go dual format and they came to the forum/Facebook seeking everyone's opinion, Criterion has five years of hard sales data behind their decision, they've already made it, and no amount of whinging here is going to change that. If they do eventually abandon dual format releases, it will be because they tried it out long enough to determine that it wasn't working, which of course remains to be seen.

[Anthony]

4.) Go dual-format, dropping the per-unit cost, and keeping most of their Blu and DVD base, while also increasing profits... but lose Anthony as a customer

Hmmmmm...

Sorry to disappoint, but they aren't losing me as a customer.

And to your other point... limiting the releases to 3k or 5k... I believe the more you have to pay for something the more you cherish it. So I wouldn't have a problem if they had to raise their prices to $50+ to off-set their lower release volume.

[domino harvey]

This just in: It costs $3,500 to post here. PM me for PayPal details

[Arrow]

I know that most people watch all of their movies at home, but I'm sure there are other like me who watch 90% of them away from home. I travel and bring a selection with me for watching at hotels, airports, etc,. I'm blu compatible at home, but up until just recently I could only bring DVD's on the road. Just prior to the announcement I bought a portable blu player, but it's tiny and I am happy that both will be available.

I realize that people like me are not the reason dual format exists, but with the transition still taking place, it's very convenient.

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, I think the last thing I ever expected to see was someone demanding that Criterion adopt Twilight Time's methods. I feel like I'm in Rand McNally here.

Becker's article made me hopeful about a couple of things- first, that if this reduces the overall unit cost per spine, that they'll be able to put more money into features and make every or nearly every spine a marquee title instead of sort of alternating between amazing, extensive packages on some and Something Wild style pittances on others, and second, that this means that it will now be worthwhile doing titles where they expect to sell fewer copies overall; that is to say, if they had to print 20,000 copies of a film to get decent costs on manufacturing the packaging, and they only expect to sell 9,000 before, it wouldn't have made any sense to put it out, but maybe now it will be justifiable.

Exciting news about Eclipse, too, obviously, and I'm glad to know that blu upgrades won't necessarily all be duals, since that would make selling DVDs to pay for upgrades infinitely harder.

[cdnchris]

4.) Go dual-format, dropping the per-unit cost, and keeping most of their Blu and DVD base, while also increasing profits... but lose Anthony as a customer

Hmmmmm...

Sorry to disappoint, but they aren't losing me as a customer.

And to your other point... limiting the releases to 3k or 5k... I believe the more you have to pay for something the more you cherish it. So I wouldn't have a problem if they had to raise their prices to $50+ to off-set their lower release volume.

Though I realize responding to you is useless, I'm going to point out that even if they sold their 3k run at $100 a piece they'd still make more money going the dual-format route at $40 a pop. Yeah, economics!!

Or instead of paying $50+ for just the blu, you could pay less than $40 for the dual and throw away/donate the DVD. Again: Yeah, economics!

[tenia]

I'm still laughing at the idea that some think so badly of DF because of environment issues. I mean, to speak of Criterion covering their decisions by irrational stuff, and then trying to justify its hatred of the format by something so irrelevant.
What's the part of the video industry in environmental issues ? I mean, really ?
Are all the people complaining energy-effecient ? What are they driving ? Blah blah blah. ](*,)

Real idea behind this is purely financial : you go from 2 references from one reference, which is much easier to handle, since you will have to handle reassort for only one reference. So everything is in big batches, just like when they were doing DVD-only.

Also, of course, they found out that not so many people are still buying DVD only, so they'll try to milk them a bit and, fingers crossed, to force them moving to BD.

Arrow, BFI, MoC, Disney and most of the studios switched to DF for at least part of these reasons. Yes, it's bothersome to get a DVD you could have perfectly done without. Yes, it's bothersome for DVD buyers to have to pay more to get 1 disc you won't use (at least, not right now), but trying to use environmental awareness to justify this as a bad move seems incredibly silly to me.

Oh, for crying out loud... I hope to god this dual-format policy does not last long. Waste is waste. If you have a blu-ray player, as most people do now, then you don't need the DVDs. If you only have a DVD player, then it might be time to go to Sears, Kmart, or Target and get yourself a $50 blu-ray player. I didn't expect Criterion to keep producing LDs when DVDs became popular and the format of choice. Grow/change or die. Soon another format will emerge and we'll be expected to convert over to it once it becomes cost effective to do so. I realize this... and BDs will go bye bye. I understand and expect this. I'm not going to expect Criterion or any other company to cater to my outdated whims.

I'm the only one in my family, including my Glasgow-based girlfriend, to be HD equipped. They don't see the advantage of BD, so for them, even $50 for a BD is still too much (1). So I'm stuck with DVD to make them discover movies (2).

some people really are incapable of grasping that even if dual format means there is more in the case they purchased, overall the company they purchased the dual format release from is producing less because of the dual format.

Exactly. Before, you had 2 separate products. Now, you have the equivalent of 1,2 products blended in one.

[captveg]

Just today, I was forced by my work to burn and destroy 4 DVDs just because of security precautions and the government ban on flashdrives.

At my place of employment we destroy hundreds of BDs and DVDs a month for security reasons. Sometimes thousands.

I'm assuming these aren't commercial disks though, right?

No. But some of these discs are extra copies that will never get loaded into a machine once before they're destroyed. Waste is everywhere, and reducing it to zero is unavoidable. Criterion should be commended for finding a way to better streamline their product, which ultimately is a net savings when it comes to material waste.

[captveg]

Yes, but if before a 10,000 run of blu rays and a 10,000 run of DVDs was enough to supply customers for a year, now a 10,000 run of both would only supply customers for 6 months, and they would end up doing two pressings a year instead of one.

I think that Criterion's point was that, in your scenario, instead of doing 10,000 Blu-ray packages and 10,000 DVD packages, they'll do 20,000 dual-format packages, which is much cheaper because they are ordering larger quantities. The bulk of Criterion's production costs are in packaging, not in the replication of the discs themselves. It's the packaging they're trying to reduce costs on.

Though also implicit in Becker's article (if we assume as in your example that the optimal economic printrun is 10,000, which I expect is higher than the reality) was that, if Criterion expected a given title to sell only 12,000 units altogether, under the old model they would still have to print 10,000 Blus and 10,000 DVDs, and just hope that eventually they'd sell them all. Now they can actually print up 12,000, without being stung by inflated per-unit costs.

Also, the new system allows them to actually sell from the entirety of what is printed and not have to second guess what proportion of sales will be in which format. Under the old system, they could conceivably sell out of the first pressing of the BluRay edition of a given title and still be left with 5,000 DVDs that nobody wants to buy (or vice versa). That is wastage on a much greater scale than (boo hoo!) getting an extra disc in your case.

Exactly how I understood it.

[ShellOilJunior]

As has already been said in this thread (and at this point, everything has already been said three or four times), if you are really concerned about waste, you won't buy physical media at all.

Which leads us to the bigger picture. If one is so concerned with the "wastefulness" of physical media then isn't buying packaged, processed and GMO-laden "food" much more disastrous to the environment? It just seems those who are now citing the environment as a reason for hating dual format never had a problem with two separate releases for the past 5 years. I think their hostilities should be directed not against a boutique label like Criterion but a multinational corporation like Monsanto. I think the poster above me who cited the Bart Simpson/Mr. Burns analogy said it best.

[Lemmy Caution]

Another option, which Becker mentions they considered, was to sell second runs of their Dvd's in packages without the expensive booklets. I can understand them wanting to maintain their high product standard, and not wanting to have to field complaints from people unhappy they didn't get a booklet.

But I could also see how such a model could work. Get your 1st run edition with a fancy (limited edition) booklet! They could also sell the 2nd run cheaper without the extra printing cost, but that would run into the problem of having people delaying on buying the more expensive first run Criterion wants/needs to sell out. So they'd probably want to keep the price point the same. For the second pressing of a Dvd, the booklet essays could simply be made available online. If they didn't want them available to the public, to encourage sales of their Dvd's, they could always include a code you use to access the essays on their website. Etc.

I don't have BR, and don't really have a position on dual-format, and won't be affected one bit by their decision. Just pointing out that there were other approaches. And I suppose they'll have to see how well the dual-format decision meets their needs and sales targets.

Does anyone know why Dvd pressing costs have dropped?

[colinr0380]

I wouldn't want to have to rush to secure a very special 'limited edition' copy of a film, and one of the best things about Criterion is the way that their packages are what they are - no 'exclusive features' or 'limited runs' with the rare exceptions of OOPs and something like Straw Dogs. No having to choose between two or three differently tiered releases of a film, or box set - you get the entirety of what the company has produced with your purchase, and in a sense the move to Dual Format only solidifies that commitment to streamlining into one single product package.

This just in: It costs $3,500 to post here. PM me for PayPal details

You didn't tell me this would be retrospectively applied as well. Where am I going to find $18,970,000? ($18,973,500 now. Aaargghh!)

Though also implicit in Becker's article (if we assume as in your example that the optimal economic printrun is 10,000, which I expect is higher than the reality) was that, if Criterion expected a given title to sell only 12,000 units altogether, under the old model they would still have to print 10,000 Blus and 10,000 DVDs, and just hope that eventually they'd sell them all. Now they can actually print up 12,000, without being stung by inflated per-unit costs.

I'm curious as to whether this would possibly affect what Criterion could release (Or whether it has influenced what they have released in the past at all. Although I understand that Criterion moving into bigger titles is as much about what they are able to get their hands on from major Hollywood studios now, creating a balance of titles similar to the Laserdisc era). Could they become even more adventurous in what titles they choose to release without needing to consider separate format releases? Or, as matrix suggested, could the savings of dual format feed into producing more extensive extra features, something which seems to have been tailing off slightly in the last couple of years?

Although neither of those scenarios directly follow on from this dual format decision (if they were really impacting on those title choice or extra feature production decisions to such a negative extent, then I would guess that things would have been changed sooner), perhaps they could have a positive influence on other decisions such as those.