[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Pricing of DVD vs. Video.
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Hamaker, Chuck" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Pricing of DVD vs. Video.
- From: "T. Scott Plutchak" <TSCOTT@LISTER2.LHL.UAB.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:04:03 EDT
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
As I understand it, the studios market to the video stores first and price those early releases significantly higher, on the reasonable assumption that making them available via rental will cut into the sale of consumer tapes later on. Once the rental market slows down, they'll target the home consumer with the less expensive version. Amazon doesn't replace the older record (videostore price) with the new record (consumer price) so you can frequently find both prices there. T. Scott Plutchak Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences University of Alabama at Birmingham firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: Rick Anderson [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:43 PM To: Hamaker, Chuck; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Pricing of DVD vs. Video. > On new releases. looks like DVD is much less expensive than video. This is sometimes true for new releases. On the other hand, go to the "Hot New Releases" section at Amazon and check out the VHS prices: $25 for Harry Potter, $15 for Bridget Jones, $23 for Ocean's Eleven... not a single one lists at over $25 (except for the multi-tape box sets). Those $100-plus VHS prices are an anomaly, I think. I'd be interested to know why those pricing anomalies exist -- look up Moulin Rouge and you'll find you can buy it on VHS for $110 or $13, and there's no apparent difference between the two versions. Anybody know why this is?