3 ms·
> Consumers have a level of disposable income. Just because they spent 0.99 on your movie doesn't mean that they won't also spend $10.50 on Avatar. The number
by repsilat 15y ago
> Consumers have a level of disposable income. Just because they spent 0.99 on your movie doesn't mean that they won't also spend $10.50 on Avatar.
The number of movies people see isn't limited by their disposable income, it's limited by the number of movies they want to watch. If they get one for five dollars instead of twenty they're probably going to put the change on their mortgage or their car, or maybe their spending on food will increase as they realise they have a little more money to play with.
What they won't do is go to four times as many films as they otherwise might. I'll grant that demand is elastic, but it's not a linear relationship. Reducing the cost of film viewing in this way will absolutely reduce the amount of money spent on it.
(That disagreement aside, I think the rest of your post is pretty reasonable.)
- intended 15y agoAt that price its no real loss to skip the movie either. You can always watch it 'later'. You get checkmated here by the Holly wood buzz machine. People will go with their mainstream aware friends for the major holywood release over your movie. They will watch your movie independently, later. As has been said in this thread, the only real competiton is time - Holly wood is dying already, because they are fighting for time, which is being eroded by video games, mmos and the likes of zynga.