![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSo, randomly watching a YouTube thing with Disney videos (and after playing Disney SceneIt with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
feiran) has left me wistful for the the animated movies I missed before they "went back into the vault"--things I used to love but didn't know to buy 5+ years ago because I wasn't addicted to DVDs then (how times have changed, mm?). Like The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast, which I so definitely would own and refuse to buy used for twice the price. I not only loathe the fact that this marketing scheme makes me panic about never getting movies or, at least, not picking them up fast enough that I don't miss them, but I just don't understand it.
Google threw up this answer--the Disney marketing plan as understood by The Wall Street Journal, so I would assume they've got it right (whether they comprehend why this is the way it is any better than I, I doubt it, but at least I can trust they've got the mechanics right):
Under the new plan, Disney would continue to retire classics such as The Lion King for about a decade, in hopes that demand will build for future re-releases. But second-tier titles such as The Fox and the Hound and The Aristocats would be on shelves constantly, giving the company a more reliable stream of video sales.
Now, I'm not an MBA. I don't do business plans for a living. This seems incredibly stupid to my layperson's eye. What sense does it make to shove the titles that you know people love back into the vault and leave the ones they're less likely to buy out on the shelves. I think the threatening people with lack of access is a deplorable move but I can see its being effective. Why not do that for the less popular titles? That way people who would otherwise not buy them, no matter how long they sat on the shelves, would rush out to do so just in case they weren't available later. Titles that are perennially popular will always find a new audience to sell to, and since DVDs, once arranged and put together cost about $0.10 to make per disc, it really couldn't hurt to have lots of stock on that one continually trickling down. It's like making 12 million copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--eventually, that will all move.
Honestly, isn't this just shooting yourself in the foot? Not only are people annoyed at being cajoled and basically forced into buying or living almost forever without (especially if they might have children in the interim with whom they might want to share these old favorites; ten years is a long time when you're talking about the development of children), but when they do go to Best Buy or wherever, they're going to see the second-rate movies (hey, don't get me wrong, I think Fox and Hound was cute, and I loved the Disney version of Robin Hood, but they're just not The Lion King, right?) and associate that crap with Disney. Way to hurt your marketed image there. I'm sure that people won't be bored as nuts with your thirtieth release of Hannah Montana at all. No sir.
feiran) has left me wistful for the the animated movies I missed before they "went back into the vault"--things I used to love but didn't know to buy 5+ years ago because I wasn't addicted to DVDs then (how times have changed, mm?). Like The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast, which I so definitely would own and refuse to buy used for twice the price. I not only loathe the fact that this marketing scheme makes me panic about never getting movies or, at least, not picking them up fast enough that I don't miss them, but I just don't understand it.Google threw up this answer--the Disney marketing plan as understood by The Wall Street Journal, so I would assume they've got it right (whether they comprehend why this is the way it is any better than I, I doubt it, but at least I can trust they've got the mechanics right):
Under the new plan, Disney would continue to retire classics such as The Lion King for about a decade, in hopes that demand will build for future re-releases. But second-tier titles such as The Fox and the Hound and The Aristocats would be on shelves constantly, giving the company a more reliable stream of video sales.
Now, I'm not an MBA. I don't do business plans for a living. This seems incredibly stupid to my layperson's eye. What sense does it make to shove the titles that you know people love back into the vault and leave the ones they're less likely to buy out on the shelves. I think the threatening people with lack of access is a deplorable move but I can see its being effective. Why not do that for the less popular titles? That way people who would otherwise not buy them, no matter how long they sat on the shelves, would rush out to do so just in case they weren't available later. Titles that are perennially popular will always find a new audience to sell to, and since DVDs, once arranged and put together cost about $0.10 to make per disc, it really couldn't hurt to have lots of stock on that one continually trickling down. It's like making 12 million copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--eventually, that will all move.
Honestly, isn't this just shooting yourself in the foot? Not only are people annoyed at being cajoled and basically forced into buying or living almost forever without (especially if they might have children in the interim with whom they might want to share these old favorites; ten years is a long time when you're talking about the development of children), but when they do go to Best Buy or wherever, they're going to see the second-rate movies (hey, don't get me wrong, I think Fox and Hound was cute, and I loved the Disney version of Robin Hood, but they're just not The Lion King, right?) and associate that crap with Disney. Way to hurt your marketed image there. I'm sure that people won't be bored as nuts with your thirtieth release of Hannah Montana at all. No sir.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-09 05:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-09 07:01 pm (UTC)