By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Blu-rays sale percentage tracking

Kasz216 on 25 February 2010
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Except it wasn't more expensive than VHS.

Even in the early days it cost about 70 cents to replicate a DVD vs $.250 to replicate a VHS tape.

The profit motivation behind DVD for companies was that once it became the mean DVD would be cheaper then VHS.

http://www.proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_production.htm DVDs were always cheaper then VHS tapes. It was the extra fixed costs that made early DVDs cost more... the kind of thing you'd want to get rid of fast by aggressivly pushing the format. Blu-ray does not have this luxuary.


Those numbers for DVD are from 2003,  which was 7 years after DVD was released.

where do you see that?

Last paragraph in that article:

Videotapes don't really have a mastering cost, and they run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost about $1,000 to master and $0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about $3,000 to master and about $8 to replicate. As of 2003, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers). Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive

Regardless... blu-rays will NEVER be cheaper then DVDs. At some point it may become as cheap... but there is no motivation that blu-ray could ever offer a 1.50 worth of savings per DVD. There was still more reason to push it.

And where did I ever say that Blu-ray would be cheaper than DVD?

Well that's the point you kept missing.  There was a much more vested financial advantage in agressivly pushing DVD then, then there is Blu-ray now.  DVD was going to be more profitable... Blu-ray... after it beats DVD at best is going to be as profitable... hence the real money making is made BEFORE it goes mainstream when they can charge a premium.

It's in a lot of companies vested interest to prolong Blu-ray.

As you can see, the actual production costs actually were cheaper... even in 97.  Unless you think VHS reduced prices less then 10 cents in 7 years.



Around the Network
Vetteman94 on 25 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Except it wasn't more expensive than VHS.

Even in the early days it cost about 70 cents to replicate a DVD vs $.250 to replicate a VHS tape.

The profit motivation behind DVD for companies was that once it became the mean DVD would be cheaper then VHS.

http://www.proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_production.htm DVDs were always cheaper then VHS tapes. It was the extra fixed costs that made early DVDs cost more... the kind of thing you'd want to get rid of fast by aggressivly pushing the format. Blu-ray does not have this luxuary.


Those numbers for DVD are from 2003,  which was 7 years after DVD was released.

where do you see that?

Last paragraph in that article:

Videotapes don't really have a mastering cost, and they run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost about $1,000 to master and $0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about $3,000 to master and about $8 to replicate. As of 2003, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers). Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive

Regardless... blu-rays will NEVER be cheaper then DVDs. At some point it may become as cheap... but there is no motivation that blu-ray could ever offer a 1.50 worth of savings per DVD. There was still more reason to push it.

And where did I ever say that Blu-ray would be cheaper than DVD?

Well that's the point you kept missing.  There was a much more vested financial advantage in agressivly pushing DVD then, then there is Blu-ray now.  DVD was going to be more profitable... Blu-ray... after it beats DVD at best is going to be as profitable... hence the real money making is made BEFORE it goes mainstream when they can charge a premium.

It's in a lot of companies vested interest to prolong Blu-ray.

As you can see, the actual production costs actually were cheaper... even in 97.  Unless you think VHS reduced prices less then 10 cents in 7 years.

No I am not missing the point,  so much in fact that I even stated it in an earlier post.  Again, you people are not reading my posts.

You can easily make up for the lower profits when you drop the prices with the increased volume you would see.  Charging a premium for a product with a limited user base does not make you money. 

No I cant see I guess,  where is the price of VHS in 1997?  



Kasz216 on 25 February 2010
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Except it wasn't more expensive than VHS.

Even in the early days it cost about 70 cents to replicate a DVD vs $.250 to replicate a VHS tape.

The profit motivation behind DVD for companies was that once it became the mean DVD would be cheaper then VHS.

http://www.proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_production.htm DVDs were always cheaper then VHS tapes. It was the extra fixed costs that made early DVDs cost more... the kind of thing you'd want to get rid of fast by aggressivly pushing the format. Blu-ray does not have this luxuary.


Those numbers for DVD are from 2003,  which was 7 years after DVD was released.

where do you see that?

Last paragraph in that article:

Videotapes don't really have a mastering cost, and they run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost about $1,000 to master and $0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about $3,000 to master and about $8 to replicate. As of 2003, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers). Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive

Regardless... blu-rays will NEVER be cheaper then DVDs. At some point it may become as cheap... but there is no motivation that blu-ray could ever offer a 1.50 worth of savings per DVD. There was still more reason to push it.

And where did I ever say that Blu-ray would be cheaper than DVD?

Well that's the point you kept missing.  There was a much more vested financial advantage in agressivly pushing DVD then, then there is Blu-ray now.  DVD was going to be more profitable... Blu-ray... after it beats DVD at best is going to be as profitable... hence the real money making is made BEFORE it goes mainstream when they can charge a premium.

It's in a lot of companies vested interest to prolong Blu-ray.

As you can see, the actual production costs actually were cheaper... even in 97.  Unless you think VHS reduced prices less then 10 cents in 7 years.

No I am not missing the point,  so much in fact that I even stated it in an earlier post.  Again, you people are not reading my posts.

You can easily make up for the lower profits when you drop the prices with the increased volume you would see.  Charging a premium for a product with a limited user base does not make you money. 

No I cant see I guess,  where is the price of VHS in 1997?  

Sure you can... when your also selling the other product.

The big movie companies STILL make money off DVDs you know.   They make more charging DVDs at a regular price, and Blu-rays at a premium then they would if blu-ray went mainstream and they had to charge DVD prices for Blu-ray.



Metallicube on 26 February 2010

The main problem with Blu Ray is they don't do enough to differentiate themselves to DVDs. In other words, people do not see incentive or improvement enough to go out and buy a whole new player to play this new form of media. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE I've talked to who doesn't know a lot about tech has asked me, "What is blu ray?" or "what does it do different from DVD?"



Kasz216 on 26 February 2010
Metallicube said:
The main problem with Blu Ray is they don't do enough to differentiate themselves to DVDs. In other words, people do not see incentive or improvement enough to go out and buy a whole new player to play this new form of media. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE I've talked to who doesn't know a lot about tech has asked me, "What is blu ray?" or "what does it do different from DVD?"

That and the backwords compatability... you'll have some people rebuying their media, which was another big profit motivator behind the move to DVD... but not as much.

There really isn't anywhere near the profit motivators and profits to be made for the Blu-Ray Assosiation as their was for the DVD Forum.



Around the Network
Vetteman94 on 26 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Metallicube said:
The main problem with Blu Ray is they don't do enough to differentiate themselves to DVDs. In other words, people do not see incentive or improvement enough to go out and buy a whole new player to play this new form of media. Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE I've talked to who doesn't know a lot about tech has asked me, "What is blu ray?" or "what does it do different from DVD?"

That and the backwords compatability... you'll have some people rebuying their media, which was another big profit motivator behind the move to DVD... but not as much.

There really isn't anywhere near the profit motivators and profits to be made for the Blu-Ray Assosiation as their was for the DVD Forum.

Of course not, when something costs 2.50 to make plus mastering and they sell it for $40-50 for the first year,  its tough to compete with that kind of profitability



Vetteman94 on 26 February 2010

I went through and calculated the Top 20 Blu-ray Ratio. For the previous week Blu-ray was actually quite high. The ratio was 19:81. I might start including this in the weekly updates just as a reference as to how it used to be. And to show that Blu-ray isnt doing that bad, it just seems the catalog titles might be where DVD has an extreme advantage and I think these numbers show that.



Vetteman94 on 01 March 2010

Week ending 02/21/2010 numbers are in

Another poor showing from Blu-ray.  Total Blu-ray ratio 8:92.  Top 20 numbers a little better,  they come in at 13:87.   It was funny to see Halo:Legends  do 30% on Blu-ray.

 



joeorc on 05 March 2010

Blu-ray Sells over $200m in Jan-Feb 2010, Restores Growth for Packaged Media

According to aggregate weekly estimates from the research department of Home Media Magazine, revenues from Blu-ray sales in the US in 2010 through February were $200.95 million, 59% more than in the same period of 2009. Additionally, thanks to Blu-ray, the revenue from packaged-media sales stopped falling and grew 3% year-on-year.

As to market share, Blu-ray accounted for 11.7% of packaged-media sales revenue in the first two months of the year. In Jan-Feb 2009, this percentage was 7.6%.

The biggest-selling week was the week ended January 3, with $37.72 million in BD sales. The slowest week was the week ended February 21, with $18.58 million.

It is worth mentioning that Blu-ray sold more in these relatively slow two first months of the year than digital downloads did in the whole of 2009 ($199 million, including both standard-definition and high-definition, according to Screen Digest). In spite of all the continuous hype from tech sites and web pundits about the impending digital domination and the disc's demise, the public seems to see much more value in a movie when it comes on a high-quality physical support with top-notch video, audio and extras than on a downloaded video file.

source:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Vetteman94 on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:

Blu-ray Sells over $200m in Jan-Feb 2010, Restores Growth for Packaged Media

According to aggregate weekly estimates from the research department of Home Media Magazine, revenues from Blu-ray sales in the US in 2010 through February were $200.95 million, 59% more than in the same period of 2009. Additionally, thanks to Blu-ray, the revenue from packaged-media sales stopped falling and grew 3% year-on-year.

As to market share, Blu-ray accounted for 11.7% of packaged-media sales revenue in the first two months of the year. In Jan-Feb 2009, this percentage was 7.6%.

The biggest-selling week was the week ended January 3, with $37.72 million in BD sales. The slowest week was the week ended February 21, with $18.58 million.

It is worth mentioning that Blu-ray sold more in these relatively slow two first months of the year than digital downloads did in the whole of 2009 ($199 million, including both standard-definition and high-definition, according to Screen Digest). In spite of all the continuous hype from tech sites and web pundits about the impending digital domination and the disc's demise, the public seems to see much more value in a movie when it comes on a high-quality physical support with top-notch video, audio and extras than on a downloaded video file.

source:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com

The part in green is really impressive,  especially given how poorly Blu-ray has done the last few weeks.  And it includes both HD and SD digital downloads, where as Blu-ray is only HD.

It looks like DD is a far ways off from being mainstream,  at least for movies anyway