Time Warner mulling “premium” on-demand movies?

November 5, 2010 By Geoff Duncan

Would you be willing to pay $30 to $50 for a "premium" on-demand movie in your home?

In a conference call discussing Time Warner’s earning for the third quarter of 2010, CEO Jeff Bewkes indicated that the company is “near agreement” with movie distributors to launch a premium video-on-demand service to its customers. What would make this service special? It would offer customers access to movies that are still in theaters, potentially enabling home viewing within days of a film’s theatrical release. The catch? Although Bewkes did not discuss price points, industry reports indicate access to these “premium” films might run anywhere from $30 to $50 each.

Hollywood studios have been pondering ways to increase revenue from video-on-demand services to make up for revenue declines that the industry is largely attributing to piracy and the proliferation of inexpensive online content through outlets like Netflix. Providing access to movies that have just been released in theaters—at a premium price—might be a way for studios to reach into the pockets of its biggest fans—the ones who are already shelling out lots of money for home theater gear and (of course) Blu-ray movie titles.

Studios’ rationale is that the cost of premium video-on-demand films for home viewing will appeal to home movie watchers looking for family entertainment: although the cost might be prohibitive for a movie fan who wants to watch an art-house picture in the middle of the night, a family of four enjoying some rated-G or rated-PG fare in the comfort of their own living room might be getting off cheap. Movie theater tickets are now routinely $10 apiece: after parking and oh-so-expensive theater snacks, a high-prices video-on-demand version of a movie still in theaters might have a strong appeal.

Bewkes offered no concrete details when a service might launch, implying only that Time Warner might be able to launch the service by summer 2011.

Showing 21 comments

Seth at 3:12pm 7th November 2010 Everyone seems to say how idiotic this idea is... when in reality, if someone wants to spend 50 dollars to watch something in their home, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Pirate-food? Who cares? It is going to happen sooner or later anyway. Will I use it? Possibly. I know I've gone to more than one movie in a group larger than 4 or 5 people. Why not just have it at my house, where I can get all the drunk I want?
woody at 9:59pm 6th November 2010 I have one word for them algorithm. Guys are already hacking it.
bill at 9:57pm 6th November 2010 I'm rooting for the hackers. We will be able to watch for nothing. Remember Napster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Will at 9:56pm 6th November 2010 Go Pirates and I don't mean Pittsburg.
jason at 9:55pm 6th November 2010 The junior high hackers will make more money from piracy than hollywood will from the film. Ha Ha Hollywood
doug at 9:54pm 6th November 2010 I can go to a matinee for a total of 20.00 for my family of four. I can sneak in my own popcorn so I don't buy concession. These idiots think they can charge me 10 dollars more or 20 dollars more to watch it in my house on my small screen.. brainy ideas like that only come from Hollywood. Idiots. Don't mention the pirates because we will be able to buy the movie even cheaper from them once these idiots distribute it day and date from Hollywood. Oh and just because the movie companies have gotten permission from the fcc to block cable boxes from recording the movie some junior high hacker will be able to hack it anyway. It will be just like direct tv cards when direct tv came out. Within about two weeks hackers had figured out a bypass. These junior high hackers are much smarter than these hollywood rip off artists. They are worried about piracy so they make it easier to pirate. Great Plan. Go for it Hollywood.
KPz at 5:16pm 6th November 2010 Content providers would disable analog output on the cable boxes for this which would make piracy much harder than you think. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/07/fcc-will-let-t...
1. shawn at 11:09pm 6th November 2010 how about analog output from the TV?
Nojo at 7:12am 6th November 2010 Believe it or not, I think this will end up being a killer for many (if not most) parents with young kids. Parents will tell you that a kid can watch the same movie a bazillion times before they get tired of it. With DVD, that's trivial because you buy it once, watch it as often as you like. Good luck trying to explain to your 5 year old that THIS particular movie they have to wait to see again, but these other movies they can watch as often as they like. I wouldn't personally touch this with a 10 ft pole. It's easier to make a movie a 'treat' if we actually have to get up and go someplace. It might cost me more money per viewing (and by the way, who the hell pays for parking going to a movie? If it's a big G/PG flick, I'm probably going to the local multiplex anyway), but it will cost me less overall.
@JDHatesPontiac at 7:02am 6th November 2010 Well, seeing as how I don't have any orange soda in my house, I wouldn't have to worry about anyone talking loudly during the movie and ruining it for me. I like this idea because it allows me to stay away from those kinds of people.
Xing Ger at 6:43am 6th November 2010 So, to combat pirates who enjoy a free product, you want to introduce a $30-$50 premium priced product to compete? Sure. That sounds like an awesome idea!
Alana at 4:55am 6th November 2010 This is completely ridiculous. Peole should get out of their home and the idea that I would rather throw away money on a movie that I have no idea if it going to be good or not ( which these days, they all seem to be terrible). I would take that money and go to an amusement park. Just stop cheating the common man.
John at 3:54am 6th November 2010 No. What makes these buffoons think that the public is desperate to never leave their homes. People are already getting tired of never going out due to all of the home based diversions that are proliferating....
LightsCamera at 12:43am 6th November 2010 If Time Warner cable is involved, expect it to be half-assed . That company could screw up a free lunch. What's more, I still like the movie theatre experience when the right movie comes out. There's an aethetic to seeing movies on the big screen that no home setting can duplicate.
Qdizzle at 12:21am 6th November 2010 I think this is a great idea! Cutting out the middle-man (theaters) is the next logical step. We already destroyed record stores, expensive video rental chains, etc. The ability to bring the entertainment home would be amazing. Imagine if you (if you are one of the lucky few) owned a home cinema, to bring all your friends over to watch the movie, cook food at home, DRINK at home during movies, and pause, stop, rewind all the newest movies... home viewing parties would pop up everywhere. This is a great idea! GO FOR IT!!!
Travis715 at 11:52pm 5th November 2010 There is no way to protect this video content. It will be recorded and uploaded to the internet within minutes of it being available to customers. However, if they are considering this, they must think they have some pretty clever way to thwart the pirates.
koch at 10:37pm 5th November 2010 Americans are generally an inept, fascistic mob of ADHD cases. They would need to pay me $30 to even consider piping their sophomoric crap into my house.
Pointer at 10:34pm 5th November 2010 Funny, they state this will help recover revenue from pirating but I suspect that on-demand still-in-theaters at home movies will increase the distribution of pirated movies on the net using video capturing tech. This great for pirates because instead of uploading cam versions they can capture dvd quality stuff.
Dave at 9:42pm 5th November 2010 For individuals; no, it won't work. But for families, great! If you have the two parents and two kids then that is about $30 to $40 for the movie tickets alone. If you buy popcorn and drinks that's another $20 to $30. So yeah, $30 for an in home version of movies still in the theater would be good.
jim at 9:05pm 5th November 2010 I would do it for around $30.00 a month . Only if it gives me access to all new movies coming out and not just 2 or 3.
Brian at 8:56pm 5th November 2010 no