Netflix, despite the protestations of movie studios, has done wonders for the industry, resulting in millions of Americans that now watch DVDs on a regular basis who would otherwise probably watch whatever made-for-TV movie was on AMC; however, this revolution has been limited almost strictly to DVD delivery, unless you have a penchant for weird (or old) movies.
Hulu, the television networks’ answer to the Internet, has also flourished, but with an entirely different model: rather than paying a monthly fee for unlimited access, Hulu provides unlimited access to both fresh and archive content in exchange for some pretty hilarious, and comparatively short, commercials. There has admittedly been some network pushback, because Hulu is becoming a victim of its own success – as more people use Hulu, the actual television viewers continue to drop, and networks don’t get the big-ticket revenue they typically could have expected.
But, at the end of the day, both industries have come to realize that they need to adapt, and quickly, in order to survive in any recognizable fashion. TV networks are toying with the idea of different delivery models via Hulu, such as “all content, always” and “only the most recent episodes”, but they’re trying.
Movie studios, however, are not.
Hulu was a joint-venture by industry giants, and was only a success because it was given true independence and freedom – it’s not a service that can likely be replicated by the movie industry, especially since Hulu appears to have somehow gained the love and support of nerds that is a prerequisite for Internet-based success. It is for this very reason that the movie industry should embrace a twofold online-delivery approach: Hulu and Netflix.
Out of a $10 (USD) movie ticket, the studios receive a portion of sales, as well as a fee for the theater actually showing the film – this is an unsustainable model in the modern world of other, cheaper options. If studios could receive $5 per online viewing of new movies, with a larger audience, would they not be happy to comply? The theory is simple: allow Hulu to show New Release movies as soon as they appear in theaters, with a pre-roll ad that results in the needed income-per-viewer, which is honestly no different or more annoying than the twenty minutes of previews and ads moviegoers are currently subjected to.
Furthermore, Netflix’s mass-audience should be leveraged to their providers’ streaming benefit, either through a similar pre-roll advertising model or with an extra monthly subscriber fee to allow Netflix members access to the New Release content via streaming, much like paying for a movie channel on a cable TV plan – but is actually useful.
The music industry was forced to adapt, much to their undying hatred, and they have suffered greatly for it – this is why they continue to try to restrict listeners’ rights while also increasing profits. If the movie studios choose to adapt, much as television networks have been halfheartedly attempting to, they could fare far better in the end than they do even now. The pay-per-stream movie distribution idea, through iTunes or Amazon, was a valiant attempt but has proven to not be of interest to most consumers, likely because of its expense and DRM-related difficulties.
FOX, Lionsgate, and all the others: this idea was free. The next one will cost seven figures – the check can be made out to “Kyle ‘Awesomeguy’ Brady”.
Kyle Brady is a contributing columnist for the Inquisitr, an entrepreneur, and has a future in science fiction. He can be found at his blog, via email, or on Twitter.
Related posts:
- Movie industry says pirates killing business – box office says otherwise
- An Open Letter to the Movie Industry
- Movie industry meet your new viral marketing department – it’s those nasty pirates
