I had stopped by a Blockbuster after work today to see if anything had changed in the 6 or so months since I was at one. I had traveled a little further to one I have never been to. For the half hour I was in the store there was a steady stream of customers in and out. The store was laid out like I remember all Blockbusters to be. Candy, popcorn, snacks right in front and adjacent to the cash registers. Next, was the bin of previously viewed movies for sale, followed by the different TV shows, and genres of movies, and finally the video game section. The side walls top to bottom had more recent movies and the new releases. This does not look like a store that will be closing anytime soon, as far as I can tell.
There were a few things that did catch my eye.
First, there was a promotional blue Blockbuster/Major League Baseball beer koozie if one rented the baseball themed movies they had available. The logos for BB and MLB were on the koozie but below it were the letters licensing the two logos. BDA (assuming BDA INC) and MLBP.
BDA Inc. is a merchandiser. I am sure they were given permission to use the logo, but why not Dish, or BB INC?
I also noticed the advertised Dish Hopper display at the front of the store. This was the only merchandise of Dish around. (Other than a few banners.)
I am questioning why they wouldn’t have stacks of Dish merchandise throughout the store. Only the display and Hopper encased in display plastic.
They didn’t have phones displayed either, although BB does sell them on the website.
Lastly I want to point out any pamphlets, brochures, newsletters, etc. that were available that had the Blockbuster ticket logo stated Blockbuster 2013 LLC DID NOT state anything about Dish.
The pamphlets etc. that advertised Dish, still, only advertise Blockbuster at Home.
Home Media Magazine has an article today called "Rental Smack-down" where their contributors evaluate the available options if you don't want online rental. They were very negative on the blockbuster experience, which isn't hard to imagine since you have to really drive to find one these days. Of course Family Video wasn't mentioned as that would not fit their narrative they have been feeding the readers for the last few years.
What I really found interesting was that in the first couple of paragraphs they mentioned that Blockbuster went bankrupt twice, the last being in 2011. I have mentioned in posts that Blockbuster did a bankruptcy within an bankruptcy, and I guess the author of the article has been watching close enough to see the same thing. Of course I never would have referred to it a a second bankruptcy, and I wonder why the author chose to characterize the bifurcation of the Administrative Period in this manner. What it tells me is, they are watching this closer than we might have thought. How come they're so interested in what's left of Blockbuster?
A bankruptcy within a bankruptcy ?? Billy have you been drinking this evening ?? Maybe jerrys form before the form is part of the bankruptcy within a bankruptcy ?? Did blibs go down 90% today too bad how sad :(