Mohtalim

Has anyone here watched Firefly?

I just finished the complete dvd collection, and I've got to say it's incredibly good for a series that was cancelled :/

The also seems to be a movie coming out September 30th.

Is it reasonable for studios to begin making straight-to-dvd television shows? I don't know what current stats are for how many people watch any given show vs how effective the advertising during the commercials is vs whatever other factors may be important. But I do know that purchasing an entire series on dvd for $60 is becoming more common. Possibly even commonplace.

Would it not be so common if the shows weren't on tv first, allowing people to say "did you see the last episode of that show?"? For any of you who buy tv seasons on dvd, how much of the decision purchase is based on the hype that went with the show when you or your friends watched it once a week? Or your ability to see some episodes on tv to decide if you liked it enough to buy it?

I bet that if, for whatever reason, more shows came out straight to dvd, we would start to see sampler dvds, or preview nights on television, so that you could see the first one or two episodes of various shows and decide whether to buy them. Kind of Like movie trailers, but more appropriate for the episode format.

It will never happen.

-Preview discs currently cost $10 or so. Watching a new show on TV costs nothing.

-Straight-to-DVD requires that the entire season be produced before the audience gets a chance to see it. That means if the series bombs, a lot more money is lost.

-DVD season sales are currently a form of syndication. All of the production expenses were covered by the advertisers on the first airing. If you take the advertisers out of the equation, the cost of a DVD season would have to increase a lot to cover it.

-Again, as an alternative to syndication, DVDs reduce the number of people who watch reruns. Reruns can generate advertising revenue over and over from the same individual (how many times have you seen most Simpsons episodes), whereas DVD sales only happen once per family.

I think part of the problem is that I, like many people, am not willing to pay $60 for a season of a TV series. $30 maybe. $15 sure. The Fox season1 sale was worth it to get season 1 of "24" for $15. Heck, even getting season 1 of Buffy for $15 wasn't bad.

Agreed. $60 is high. I've payed $30-$40 for most of the sets I bought.

I think the pricepoint that will work for even mediocre straight to dvd series is at about $20 or $25 right now. If hollywood decides to be less greedy overall, which I doubt will ever happen, then that target will fall.

A good marketing strategy might be to do something like battlestar did and allow free downloads of the first episode to get people hooked. The only problem with this model is that the last episode no longer has less draw as the season finale unless there are high hopes for continuing to another boxed set. Instead the first episode is where a disproportionate amount of the money will be spent.

$20 would be about right to place a series in the impulse-buy range. However, as I mentioned above, no series could afford to go straight to DVD for those prices. At that price you're making less than a dollar per household per episode with no chance of repeat income.

Now, while I don't believe you can go straight to DVD, I do think that older series/season which have already recouped expenses through first airings and syndication should price seasons at $20. Maybe $30 for hour-long shows. $100+ for Farscape and Star Trek is absurd.

I think instead of straight-to-DVD, the more appealing option business-wise is straight-to-internet. You could charge per episode instead of per season.

It still takes too long to download a 700MB movie at 30k/s ~7 hours with some minor network hiccups. People's ISPs will start to complain after they're half way through the first season. If I'm paying for 30k/s, I think I should be able to max that out all the time... If I had 10mbit, then sure, I shouldn't necessarily be maxing that out all the time, and probably couldn't unless I'm at least a minor hub in a warez group or something (no personal experience here of course...).

30k/s? What, are you living in 1999? The majority of broadband customers have cable. Verizon is coming out with 5, 15, and 30 Mbps service. We'll see WiMax deployments at ~10 Mbps starting at the end of this year. 256kbps is on the way out.

Also, check your numbers. A 1 hour TV show takes up 350-400 MB. 30 minutes (or 22, ha!) would be less. At 500kB/s, which is what my 802.11g+cable connection seems to sustain, I'd buy a 20 min TV show in a heartbeat.

The economics are going to be less hit-based. There's no longer a huge spike in ad revenue for having the highest rated show. Big budget spectaculars and stuff with stars like the cast of Friends or Seinfeld earning $1M per episode won't work. But I bet almost anything on cable could do it.

So, I live in Silicon Valley and our infrastructure kinda sucks. We've got SBC, which is taking forever to roll out their services and Comcast trying to charge about 50 or 60/mo for 3 or 4mbit cable modem service. I'd like to keep my internet bill <=40/month, which I'm doing now at 20/mo.

Well, that's what Comcast charges, yes. We've got Comcast; with cable, they charge $43 per month. Without cable, it's about what you said. Although we get 6 Mbps. I thought all Comcast customers did.

Also, I just can't emphasize how ripe this is. Get Steve Jobs to start it. Use FairPlay. Let people burn to DVD. Profit!!! Translate to movies and HD later when the bandwidth supports it.

So, you're saying iTunes should turn into a sort of iTV as well? They'll need a better name to start with, but I think you're almost right. Maybe a shorter 10 minute format would workbetter than the 20 minute tv thing for now since the rest of the country isn't blessed with 6mbit cable. The main drawback is the 100x bandwidth cost increase per sale... 3 megs per song vs 300 megs per episode.

The profitability of various distribution methods is an interesting discussion topic. However, the original intention of the thread was to get opinions on the specific series, Firefly, itself.

So, has anyone here watched Firefly?

Send me your copies of the DVD's and I'll try to be more on topic.

I'll take that as a no.

Yes, it's a no for now. I may be able to get a copy from a coworker in the next couple weeks though, so try again later

Dwindlehop wrote:At 500kB/s, which is what my 802.11g+cable connection seems to sustain...

I dare you to try to sustain that 500kB/s for more than 24 hours. Most ISPs will terminate your service (Millenium won't, they'll simply bill you for Business-class service). Cable ISPs are severely underprovisioned on the last hop and only survive based on the fact that most users don't use the high bandwidth for more than a few seconds at a time. High bandwidth, sustained transfers (like the 8-10 GB for one season) by a large fraction of their subscribers would collapse the whole house of cards.

Vinny: No I haven't seen Firefly yet. I probably will try to before Serenity comes out.

Certainly horror stories abound about getting notices of being in "excess of reasonable bandwidth."

The content necessary to keep a 500kB/s pipe full for 24 hours would cost hundreds of dollars, though. You don't need support for that kind of behavior. 8-10 GB is only 4.6 hours at 500kB/s.

Sure, if by "collapse the house of cards" you mean "reduce everyone's max bandwidth."

The cost of bandwidth for iTunes barely enters into the equation. Half the money goes to the artist/label. A quarter goes to the credit card company. Bandwidth and server fees amount to just a few cents. Yes, with iTV you'd increase the percentage of cost for bandwith, but the percentage to the credit card company goes way down because the per unit price is higher.

I haven't seen Firefly either. Scott Kurtz likes it.