Rupert Murdoch’s Interesting Move With Redbox

12:38 am EST August 12th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 8 Comments

So last week Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp made news by trying to pull 20th Century Fox movies out of those Redbox movie rental kiosks, claiming that they lost money from them. But now this week, Lionsgate Films signed a deal with Redbox, worth $158 million.

Now just looking in from the outside my guess would be for a movie studio like 20th to get distribution of its product anyway possible – especially as we move our way of getting movies closer and closer to digital (probably totally within a decade to decade and a half I guess). The Redbox kiosks seem like a good way to make some cash while its still there.

The move seems counterintuitive to me from Murdoch, but I guess we’ll see.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

8 Responses to “Rupert Murdoch’s Interesting Move With Redbox”

  1. durablend says:
    August 12, 2009 at 6:55 am

    The damn things just SCREAM “Republican” (they’re red–DUH).

    Don’t understand what Rupert’s problem is–senility, perhaps?

  2. Jay says:
    August 12, 2009 at 8:57 am

    Once again Oliver, you’re not accurately reporting what’s in the story. If nobody clicked the link, then people would assume that Murdoch was trying to “pull 20th Century Fox movies out of those Redbox movie rental kiosks” as you said. But that’s not the case. The story says:

    instructing its DVD wholesalers not to sell discs to the fast-growing $1-per-night DVD rental kiosk company until 30 days after they’re released.

    This is a pretty logical business move (other studios are considering following in 20th Century’s footsteps) as studios make the most money on rentals and sales of new DVD releases in the first few weeks of their release. If people really want to see a movie on DVD when it is first released, they’re going to pay the premium charged by Blockbuster, but most people will go to the Redbox kiosk if they can get it for a buck. So if the studios feel they’re losing money that way, it make sense to hold back for 30-45 days before allowing titles to be rented for a dollar.

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    August 12, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Yeah but its just 20th and Sony that feel that way while the other studios seem to think it works ok for them. My guess is the audience going to Blockbuster is not the same as the Redbox audience.

    Then again, I haven’t been to a video store in about a decade.

  4. The Dark Avenger says:
    August 12, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Redbox has taken over the local Wal-Mart as well, so they’re becoming the Borg of retail machines.

  5. Duros62 says:
    August 12, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    I’ll stick with Netflix, thanks very much. Nothing I’ve seen in those Redboxes I want to see anyway.

  6. Michael Over Here says:
    August 12, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Murdoch’s a financial genius! MySpace was totally worth $580 million! His purchase didn’t further ruin an already fading brand!

  7. Sean D. Martin says:
    August 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Jay: If people really want to see a movie on DVD when it is first released, they’re going to pay the premium charged by Blockbuster, but most people will go to the Redbox kiosk if they can get it for a buck.

    Damn that capitalism! Shame on Redbox for providing a service at a lower cost!

  8. Sean D. Martin says:
    August 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    from the article:

    The 20th Century Fox film and television studio saw operating income decline 8% to $203 million, primarily because of lower DVD sales for older television shows.

    I’d surmise older TV shows are more likely to be sold to older folks. And older folks might be more likely to watch their pennies as the economy in the US struggles.

    One might even think a drop in income for a company that provides an optional entertainment expense would actually be a result of the general economic situation.

    Nah, revenues are down. Must be that damn Redbox’s fault.