The article pulls in too many directions for me to be able to form a strong view on the author’s, and subjects’, viewpoints.
I understand that each part of the value-chain has its own incentive, but if you look at the key “reasons” from top to bottom, you get a view on how fragmented the industry is.
In an attempt to bolster consumer interest in paid video on demand […]
“[…] What we are really interested in seeing is whether this increases the buy rates.”
“we believe that they will be very cautious in introducing any new less profitable service that could be cannibalistic to the rental and retail channel.”
The experiment is a result of pressure by the cable industry to test paid video on demand so that it could get a slice of the revenues immediately after theater release.
Well, is it about consumer interest or business (self) interest?
The answer is both. Generally, it’s hard to find a consistent view on what on-demand means. What it provides, or what it produces.
It provides a method for producers to get closer to the audience, if the network agrees to carry the content immediately after completion/release.
It produces revenue streams that are less convoluted, if the rights-holder or “seller” can agree to take a revenue-share.
But it also means that release windows become less relevant. If people already check “vcdquality.com” (or equivalent) for “release” dates, why not knife the bootleg by providing low-resistance methods of seeing the real thing?