Social Feed

Here we are, folks, in 2023 almost in 2024. The most important thing to think about is that it's now coming on 4 years since the world shut down. In some ways it seems longer, but in other ways it seems like it was just yesterday. One thing's for sure: we can pretend it didn't happen, but it did. And, we're still dealing with the social implications as much as the medical ones. One of those implications is the way we relate to streaming content.

I've tried to evolve this column over the years to reflect that. The first Streaming Saturday article was in the summer of 2016. Back then, streaming still had quite the halo. Most folks were discovering that streaming was an inexpensive way to get a lot of great content. Since then, our relationship with streaming has matured. In the early 2020s, the dark days, streaming was a big part of our connection to the world. With movie theaters closed, a lot of premium content went straight to streaming. You could find first-run hits coming straight at you, included in your streaming subscription. That was great. But, there was another trend that wasn't so great, one that's stuck around even though movie theaters are open and doing great business.

$20 (or more rentals) are definitely a thing

It became pretty clear early on that a film costing $100 million or more wasn't going to make its money back by going straight to a streaming app where no one had to pay for it. Sure, there were some funny calculations to help studios feel like they were recouping that cash. But, honestly, they weren't. Unfortunately the rush of movies to streaming helped contribute to the pickle we're in today. Studio heads soured on streaming quickly, just as people learned to rely on it. Faced with the reality that streaming apps just didn't pay for themselves, the studios raised prices and looked for new ways to make money.

One of those new ways emerged during lockdown. Before heading straight to a streaming app, a few films tried something new. They offered early access to movies for $20 or more as a rental. Some folks went for it, and others didn't. But, it certainly helped bolster those studio budgets since the cost to implement was nearly zero.

A $20 rental seemed like a fair deal, whether or not you were the sort of person who thought a trip to the movie theater would kill you. After all, with tickets and popcorn, a trip for four to the theater could easily be $75 or more. Sure, you didn't get the whole experience, but you ended up with a few more dollars in your pocket.

The reality of the $20 rental

Today, with movie theaters back in full swing, $20 rentals are still with us. It's now a permanent part of the cycle. A film starts in the theaters, then moves to a $30 purchase, then to a $20 rental, and finally settles in to a $6 or $7 rental and a trip to one or more streaming apps. Eventually, it ends up on a free streamer like Tubi or Pluto with commercials, and also on traditional pay TV.

But the reality is actually that studios are using the $20 rental to keep people waiting a little longer. They want to stress that streaming apps are still worth paying for, but you should also see a movie in the theater. If you missed it there, you can pay way too much and watch it at home before everyone else.

It seems to me that this is a case of trying to have it all. Studios want to control the entire pipeline from beginning to end, manipulating you into paying twice or three times for the same content. You loved Barbie in the theater, so why not shell out another $20 to rent it as soon as you can? If you still loved it, great! You can see it on Max (eventually) which you're paying another $15 or so a month for. Still love it months later? It will probably leave Max and you'll have to sign up for another streaming app to keep enjoying it.

You're free to disagree

There's a reason that this kind of blatant manipulation is legal: it's purely optional. No one forced you to go see Top Gun Maverick in the theater. You did that all on your own. You paid the money to "own" it, too, even though all you own is a check box in a database that says you can stream it whenever you want. When it came to Paramount+, you didn't have to keep paying for Paramount+. It was your choice.

And so, this really means that there's nothing illegal going on. It's just shady as heck and it's just not how you treat your customers. But, these studios have learned that you won't get off their little merry-go-round of shame, in fact you'll pay to stay on it. So what's stopping them?

The real answer

The real answer, as many others have pointed out, is to make movies that don't cost as much. The #1 reason movie budgets are so high is poor planning. So much reshooting goes on, because studios can't agree on scripts ahead of time. Those reshoots cost money, the re-edits cost money, and then this squeezes the time frame so that the post-production costs money. CGI budgets are razor thin so these companies have no choice but to charge more for even the slightest production crunch. In the end, you have films with budgets north of $150,000,000. Those films need to make $500,000,000 or more in order to break even due to licensing and marketing. So of course studios are going to try to make money any way they can.

With proper planning and budgeting, most films could be made for half the price without squeezing the real people who make films. This would let studios make twice as many movies, and put them out there without taking silly steps like $20 rentals. That's a win for everyone.

Some of the best movies ever made have had tiny budgets, even accounting for inflation. Back in the days when people shot film, it was so expensive that you had no choice but to plan carefully. We need to get back to that kind of careful budgeting so that we don't lose the ability to stream for any reasonable price.

The post STREAMING SATURDAY: Why are $20 rentals still a thing? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.

Continue reading...