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.â€
â€œwe believe that they will be very cautious in introducing any new less profitable service that could be cannibalistic to the rental and retail channel.â€
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?