That is why I think the blockbuster service coming out in early 2004 might be attractive to urban subscribers. They will allow the return to any of their stores. I understand this is not a factor if you live in small city since you wouldn't want to drive to a store in the first place. I live in NYC and personally do not need a dvd rental service. In my situation, I have 5 movie theater within 5 blocks. In addition, I have the best package from time warner which includes sub to 4 premium channaes that have new movies each week. I also can get pay per view for $3.95. And franklly I don't have the time to watch more movies then that. Online dvd rental might be attractive option in small cities. But don't forget that walmart is pretty strong in suburban areas. And that blockbusterrs new service will not be good for the future growth of the company. I am still short and I am not worried as I don't play stock market for short term.
>Online dvd rental might be attractive option >in small cities.
NFLX's largest penetration is in San Francisco with over 5%. It'd be interesting to see them break out sub penetration number in other big areas, I know by ancedotal evidence that NFLX is doing very well in Atlanta.
My guess is that subscribers in big city are most likely heavy users of the service. This means that netflix is either not making any money or lossing money on them. Why else would anyone use their service, if one could easliy pick up and drop off on the way to work?
As another New Yorker, I can cite reasons why Netflix is *ideal* for large cities like New York.
> I have 5 movie theater within 5 blocks
Yes, but you watch whatever is playing, with little option for anything else. And that's $10 per movie in NY. Your selection is better if you're near Film Forum or the Angelika, but if it's not, the selection is limited.
>I have the best package from time warner >which includes sub to 4 premium channaes that >have new movies each week.
Same problem as the movie theater problem. A fine solution if you're OK with watching what the networks think you should watch, but a poor solution otherwise.
>I also can get pay per view for $3.95
This cost is only for movies that have been out of the "newly released" circuit for a long time. Anything semi-current (anywhere between 6mo-yr) is more expensive. Last time I did this the range was $5.95 - 6.95.
I've tried video-on-demand from Time Warner. The compression and transmission is choppy every 5-10 minutes, making the movie unwatchable. Unless you're quite forgiving. I live in the heart of Manhattan, so this isn't a "you're out in the boondocks" problem.
And lastly, everyone in New York City hates Blockbuster. People in the suburbs may think "late fees" as soon as they hear Blockbuster. In the city, we think "loooong lines staffed by the rude and incompetent". Every New Yorker has a "I waited at Blockbuster's for 40 minutes" story. And we all know how much New Yorkers love to wait in lines!
I am not sure when was the last time you had used the time warner service. All their pay pay view movies are 3.95. I had never had any problem watching the movie on my digital service. And the few times I rented from blockbuster, there was a very small line. They guarantee to have the movie or it is free, which is a nice feature.
I love it when some desperate short throws out bogus numbers and "facts" and someone like you (living in that city) comes along and refutes the meaningles numbers with real facts and naming names of theatres etc to back up your reply.
Won't they ever learn that there are people out there that can correct their BS on the spot?