Comments on: Apple’s Pricing Experiment: Part Two http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/06/apples-pricing-strategy-part-two/ Economics, Politics, Entertainment and Life in Academia Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:03:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: ProfSwitzer http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/06/apples-pricing-strategy-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-3881 ProfSwitzer Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:54:48 +0000 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/?p=775#comment-3881 3D a big question mark in my opinion. I know that Sony is also going forward with the television version of this, and they're thinking this will be the wave of the future. I watched the commercial during the Super Bowl that was in 3D, and I watched the 3D episode of Chuck the next day -- it gave me a headache. It's definitely different from the old-school 3D, where it was a 2D landscape and occasionally something would jump out at you. I'm not sure if it's a short-term trend or not, but in my opinion probably not. I think James Cameron's Avatar could have a huge role in this. Reviews of the 3D in it are that it is so subtle and realistic that it's like you're looking through a window, not looking at a flat screen. I'm not sure what they do with the goggles. I would hope they would sanitize them and re-use them. The cost of producing in 3D is getting much lower -- the computer basically does it -- and the quality is getting better. Theater attendance has basically been flat for the last 8 years despite population growth and theater improvements, and with the affordability of HDTV and Blu-ray, I don't see attendance increasing...unless movie makers can convince people that 3D is so much better they people will have to see these movies in the theaters. 3D a big question mark in my opinion. I know that Sony is also going forward with the television version of this, and they’re thinking this will be the wave of the future. I watched the commercial during the Super Bowl that was in 3D, and I watched the 3D episode of Chuck the next day — it gave me a headache. It’s definitely different from the old-school 3D, where it was a 2D landscape and occasionally something would jump out at you. I’m not sure if it’s a short-term trend or not, but in my opinion probably not. I think James Cameron’s Avatar could have a huge role in this. Reviews of the 3D in it are that it is so subtle and realistic that it’s like you’re looking through a window, not looking at a flat screen.

I’m not sure what they do with the goggles. I would hope they would sanitize them and re-use them.

The cost of producing in 3D is getting much lower — the computer basically does it — and the quality is getting better. Theater attendance has basically been flat for the last 8 years despite population growth and theater improvements, and with the affordability of HDTV and Blu-ray, I don’t see attendance increasing…unless movie makers can convince people that 3D is so much better they people will have to see these movies in the theaters.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/06/apples-pricing-strategy-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-3874 Anonymous Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:44:51 +0000 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/?p=775#comment-3874 How about the new movie trend.. going 3D. Theater's jack the price up ($11.75 at Parkwood 18) of the movies shown in 3D. Is it because they think more people will come to view these movies? The price of the 3D goggles can't really justify a price increase of over $3 per ticket can it? Granted, the goggles are of higher quality than the paper ones you get when you purchase a 3D movie from a store, but then what do they do with those goggles when people recycle them into those blue boxes when exiting the theater? Do they repackage and re-use? This would seem to make economic sense. Both studios and theaters would make money of the re-use of the goggles, keeping prices high and costs lower. Also, by producting movies in 3D studios must be making more money since the cost of the ticket is so much higher. Do you think we're going to start to see a lot more movies in 3D or is this just a short-term trend that will eventually fade away? How about the new movie trend.. going 3D. Theater’s jack the price up ($11.75 at Parkwood 18) of the movies shown in 3D. Is it because they think more people will come to view these movies? The price of the 3D goggles can’t really justify a price increase of over $3 per ticket can it? Granted, the goggles are of higher quality than the paper ones you get when you purchase a 3D movie from a store, but then what do they do with those goggles when people recycle them into those blue boxes when exiting the theater? Do they repackage and re-use? This would seem to make economic sense. Both studios and theaters would make money of the re-use of the goggles, keeping prices high and costs lower. Also, by producting movies in 3D studios must be making more money since the cost of the ticket is so much higher. Do you think we’re going to start to see a lot more movies in 3D or is this just a short-term trend that will eventually fade away?

]]> By: Ming http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/2009/06/apples-pricing-strategy-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2293 Ming Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:44:14 +0000 http://www.profswitzer.com/blog/?p=775#comment-2293 This can be an interesting topic: art house movies versus mainstream. People like me, Mana and Philippe would go all the way from St. Cloud to Minneapolis for specific movie that does not gain wide distribution. Although we bundle up with other activities, we still pay an extra cost. Theater like Lagoon in Uptown obviously serves a different clientele. This group may be willing to pay extra cost for movie not available near home. And this group may see a specific (art house classic) movie more than once. Of course, I don't know how many are like that. Wonder if they price differently than theater that shows more mainstream movies? It does not seem so. This can be an interesting topic: art house movies versus mainstream. People like me, Mana and Philippe would go all the way from St. Cloud to Minneapolis for specific movie that does not gain wide distribution. Although we bundle up with other activities, we still pay an extra cost. Theater like Lagoon in Uptown obviously serves a different clientele. This group may be willing to pay extra cost for movie not available near home. And this group may see a specific (art house classic) movie more than once. Of course, I don’t know how many are like that. Wonder if they price differently than theater that shows more mainstream movies? It does not seem so.

]]>