Entertainment & Entrepreneurship

On July 22nd, the 40th anniversary of Comic-Con will grace San Diego with its assortments of Wizards, Warlocks, Elves, Demons, Vampires, Warriors, along artists, writers, software programmers, and filmmakers. A funny thing happened to the costumed prom for geeks and freaks - the event has grown into the cultural touchstone of new media.

The film program feature over sixty films - not counting the special screenings and other film events outside of the competition. (Self-interest disclosure: My client, Derrick Comedy will be presenting a panel and more regarding their upcoming release of Mystery Team.)

The striking aspect of Comic-Con's breadth is the way in which Internet culture has shifted towards Comic-Con's agenda. Comic books are not necessarily a larger industry than at other times in history. Comics have waxed and waned in different eras. But comics do not lend themselves to e-book readers and may have some resilience to avoid digitization. At the same time, comics have come to dominate epic film making. Comic books are inherently visual and easy to conceptualize on the big screen. Filmmakers should never give screenplays to prospective investors. They are simply too difficult to translate into the finished product and tend to read very flat. Comic books, on the other hand, translate the power and pacing of film on the page.

In addition to film, comic books translate elegantly into video games and virtual worlds, an increasingly critical aspect of modern culture. Comic book characters have come alive on game consoles and computer screens for years. With better avatar software and increasingly interoperable software platforms, the superheros, villains, monsters and myths are freeing themselves from their creators' formats to populate computers and devices of the audience's choosing.

So look to Comic-Con as a the new harbinger of taste. And remember to sharpen your broadsword.

Posted by Jon M. Garon at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A study released last week by NPD Group stated that 63% of Americans have played a video game in the past six months, higher than the 53% who went to the movies during the same period. (The study notes that 94% of those surveyed listened to music, but does not report what percentage saw a movie either in a theater or at home.) The financial impact is that gaming accounts for one third of the consumer's average monthly spending, according to NPD survey data.

The statistics explain why companies selling video game systems and high-cost premium games are faring somewhat better in the economic downturn. Given Blockbuster's difficulties (see my previous post), the company's recent announcement that it will begin experimenting with the addition of video games to its subscription service should come as no shock.

Blockbuster intends to add the service to its online rental service, initially testing it for existing subscribers. The company has yet to announce the fee structure, but expects to add both an additional charge for the game rentals and count the games against the number of rental items the subscriber has "at home."

GameStop has been one of the more successful companies in the current economy, with its first quarter sales rising 13%. Ironically, the game company did not play the Wall Street game particularly well and lost some value because the sales were below analyst targets. Despite the analysist expectations and the potential of Amazon entering the used game market, GameStop's quasi-rental model of easy resale may be a better model than Blockbuster has in mind.

There are two problems with a game rental service. First, the demongraphics may put the gamers as younger members of the household. Parents will join Netflix for the family, and they will have as much benefit as the children in the household. Parents tend to buy game consoles and games for their children, and tend not to admit to being the primary consumer of these games.

Second, games should have a longer home-life than DVDs, so the idea of churning through 2-4 games per week seems less likely than doing the same with DVDs. Of course, in actuality, many of the DVDs sit in Netflix subscriber homes for weeks or months, but no consumer would buy the service if they intended this result. In other words, the upside of the video game subscription does not have the value that a DVD subscription can have.

If Blockbuster (or Netflix, Amazon or GameStop) changes to a pricing model based on quarterly rentals or a guaranteed return price, then consumers will see the potential to save if they play enough and consider trying the service. Like club discounts, subscription services are built on the differential between what the consumer thinks is possible and what the consumer actually does.

There is more money in gaming than ever before. But Blockbuster still has yet to understand the market.

Posted by Jon M. Garon at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In its weak quarterly earnings report, Blockbuster blamed some of the weakening sales declines on improved movie house attendance.

As reported in the LA Times, Blockbuster said "we estimate nearly 3 million more people are going to the movies each week in 2009" than in 2008, he said on a conference call with analysts. "This has been pulling traffic from Blockbuster stores."

The same article noted that Netflix revenue has not been damaged by the 14% increase in movie ticket sales. Netflix gained almost one million new subscribers.

The business model is shifting. People do not like to be reminded of costs each time they listen, read, or watch. Netflix understands the changing market. Blockbuster is tied down to a retail infrastructure that will not help them without dramatic restructuring.

For all its size, Blockbuster reports only $27.7 million net income on $1.12 revenue. Stock prices are tumbling.

Blockbuster needs some quick innovation. Perhaps becoming a retail showroom for Amazon as it launches its Kindle 2 and Kindle DX, or Sony and its stuggling line. Better yet, add a subscription model that is more generous than Netflix and add an e-book subscription service as well.

The time for incremental change is gone. Blockbuster must cannibalize itself or prepare to join the list of nostalgic names that people used to visit when getting their entertainment.

Posted by Jon M. Garon at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reported a major "glitch" in the software used by its servers lost a significant amount of data collected for the May sweeps - the tracking which sets advertising rates for the upcoming television period.  In fact, the article reports that the glitch was really the second significant failing by Nielson during the sweeps. Nielson also reportedly admitted that its users generally do not know how to use the set-top 'people meters' designed to track their viewing patters.


So why rely on Nielson for ratings? Google has already established it can predict the geographic distribution of flu by tracking its search engine data can probably predict the viewership of particular television shows based on audience reaction. There is no question that the data can be used to track very particular responses from viewers.

Of course, general viewership interest is not precisely the same as minute-by-minute viewership tracking. But then again, the 12,000 homes tracked has its own sample problems. In particular, it has long been known that the home patterns miss the university living environments for a large segment of the 18-25 demographic and may paint a distorted picture of the growing online viewership. Rather than people meters, surveys, e-mails, and other less-instrusive tools could be used by the 12,000 volunteers to gain far greater data. (But please, let's be sure those surveyed are participating volunteers.)

As a side note, television news does not even report on its viewership, with a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication reported only 22 news reports related to television viewership trends in the past nine years.

Perhaps the two stories have something in common. The data regarding television trends is probably troubling to television executives. Revenue is down, but so is viewership. Perhaps its not the economy ... stupid.

Neilson's technicial glitches only remind us that television is an aging medium trying to keep to its traditions. Perhaps that's why there is such a good musuem dedicated to its history.

Posted by Jon M. Garon at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)