Day-and-date release, Bubble or Tiger?

The Weinstein Company planning worldwide day-and-date release on Netflix and IMAX theaters of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon sequel is nothing new to the industry practice.

The first noticeable (because of the combination of a high-profile director and the backing of maverick billionaires Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban) example of such strategy was in 2006 when Magnolia Pictures released the Steven Soderbergh’s movie Bubble simultaneously to theaters and cable television channel HDNet Movies, whereas four days after they released the DVD. The well-wisher of the initiative was Mark Cuban, the outspoken Internet billionaire who also owns the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, who used his network of art-house Landmark Theaters and digital television for giving the consumers the choice of how they wanted to watch a new film, even though receiving harsh criticism from Hollywood purists, windowing lovers, and being boycotted by the other theater chains who refused to screen the film.

Because of the limited release and the hardly marketable art-house nature of the movie, the experiment was a total flop as it only grossed $145,626 in the US, shown for four weeks in 32 theaters, and $116,340 internationally. Nevertheless, it definitely shook the conscience of the industry regarding windowing.


Here is how Cuban responded to John Fithian, National Association of Theater Owners head:

With the release of Bubble on January 27th in theaters, on DVD and for 2 showings on HDNet Movies, there has been a ton of press and discussion about the future of the movie industry. The most extreme has come from John Fithian, who wins the award for the best ever imitation of Jack Valenti’s famous comparison of the VCR to the Boston Strangler when he was quoted in FastCompany as saying [Fithian] called Iger’s suggestion this summer a “death threat” against his members. Fithian says that “if [release] windows were eliminated, what you would have would be fewer movies, fewer total dollars for the industry, and less choice for the consumer.” He thinks movies would become little more than commodities and that hundreds or thousands of theaters would close. But he wasn’t done there. He said the same thing to USA Today: It’s the biggest threat to the viability of the cinema industry today,” John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said of the so-called “day and date” release strategy. How sad is it when the President of the National Assoc of Theater Owners doesnt think his members can create a better movie going experience than what we can see in our houses and apartments? Guess what John, I can whip up a mean steak, but I still like to go to restaurants. Because I enjoy it. I enjoy getting out of the house with family, friends, who ever.

How would he respond today to major theater chains announcing they will be boycotting the Netflix-IMAX release? Probably, in a very similar way, even though this time the “other” distributor is VOD and not television, and the rationale behind is a little different as no customer experience can be more different than the ones offered by IMAX and Netflix, and therefore we are talking about two tatally different products which cannot cannibalize their own sales.

In 2006, a typical film used to earn about half of its revenue from home video and only about 25% from theaters. The remainder coming from selling the film to cable and broadcast TV and other sources. Media companies were already aware they had to adapt to the changing demands of consumers and the rise of digital consumption.

By 2018 the biggest chunk of revenue for film consumption will come from electronic home video, growing by 114% to reach $45B globally, with this figure possibly being even bigger if we manage to fight piracy consistently, which includes shrinking windows for films that we can forecast not performing exceptionally theatrically and most of all with a relatively short product life-cycle. Generally, while large, event movies such as King Kong may work best on the big screen, simultaneous release could be beneficial for small, independent films that often struggle for an audience while blockbusters hog theater screens. But this really needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

The future of theatrical film distribution is unknown. Practices that might not have worked 5 years ago are commonplace today, such as movies opening via VOD weeks before they reach theaters, or enjoying day-and-date release structures to reach a wider audience. Probably it will depend on the ability to provide exceptional experiences to their audiences, and also on their openness to innovation. Including experiments like Warner’s Veronica Mars crowdfunded production followed by day-and-date release, for instance: AMC Theaters rented out 260 out of 270 screens for the limited “four-walling” release, where the theater gets paid a flat rental rate, the studio keeps 100 percent of the ticket sales and the theater does not violate the industry’s theatrical “window” policy, so the risk is very low and everyone is happy.

veronica mars

It’s worth asking would this stance if this Netflix model is adopted by major studios. Not that this would occur in the next year or two. But let’s say, down the line, that the latest Marvel movie would be available on Netflix on the same day that you also could see it on an IMAX screen. Would they still refuse to carry an obvious moneymaker on principle? Is it worth for theaters to fight Netflix and other major VOD platforms as their worst enemies, or shall the industry converge on possible synergies and new strategies in order to maximize overall returns? 

The discussion is ongoing and is more interesting than ever. But #SmartMoviegoing is too powerful to be stopped and there is no industry that can survive without listening what their customers want and need, that is a fact. Therefore, a more flexible mindset is needed.


VOD in Europe is growing

The recently released report On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union published by the European Audiovisual Observatory covers more than 3,000 service providers.

According to the report “the sector is growing fast and the number of on-demand audiovisual services available in Europe is rising, driven by rapid consumer adoption and made possible by technological innovations and a shift in consumption habits”.

As of February 2014, 3 088 on-demand audiovisual services were established in the EU and listed in the MAVISE database of on-demand audiovisual services ( The leading categories are catch-up TV services (1 104 services listed), branded channels of broadcasters on open platforms (711 services listed) and VoD film services (409 listed). The countries with the most established services are the United Kingdom (682 services established), France (434 services established) and Germany (330 services established). Also, 223 services established in the USA and targeting European countries are currently available in one or several European countries.


One of the main objectives of the report is to describe the various business models of on-demand audiovisual media services and their roll-out in the EU:

  • Advertising-financed on-demand audiovisual services (catch-up TV, open platform, branded channels,…)
  • Paying transactional VoD services (rental and retail)
  • Subscription VoD (SVoD)
  • On-demand audiovisual media services provided by public broadcasters

The most interesting, biggest, and fastest growing model is SVoD. The OTT SVoD market in Western Europe is estimated at $575 million in 2012, representing 11% of worldwide SVoD subscribers (7 million). In Eastern Europe, the OTT SVoD market is estimated at $255 million, with 7% of worldwide subscribers (4 million). The world-wide OTT SVoD market is estimated to generate $8 billion in revenue by 2017, with more than 120 million worldwide subscribers.

The rapid adoption of SVoD by consumers is based on several growth drivers:

  • The proliferation of connected devices,
  • The service is offered anytime, anywhere and on any device (ATAWAD),
  • Exclusive licensing,
  • Attractive content libraries through licensing deals with major studios and networks,
  • Original programming financed by the major players (Netflix, Amazon and Hulu),
  • Personalised viewing experiences for the individual subscriber.

Release windows are playinsvod-europeg an important role for SVoD providers and determine how attractive their content library is to subscribers. France, with the longest window for movies for SVoD services (36 months), lags behind the rest of Europe in SVoD adoption. Increasingly, OTT SVoD providers are challenging established pay-TV channels and networks on their turf, as illustrated by Netflix surpassing HBO in the number of subscribers in the USA. The question for the near future will be whether “cord cutting” (abandoning traditional pay-TV for OTT SVoD) will become more widespread or whether co-existence between the two services will be established.

The report also analyses the number of VoD services available in the European Union by country of establishment. This analysis highlights the importance of cross-border and international circulation of on-demand audiovisual services. Around 60% of the VoD services available in individual EU Member States are established in one other country. This illustrates the reality of the pan-European circulation of on-demand audiovisual media services through the EU, one of the objectives of the AVMS Directive adopted in 2007.

Furthermore, it contains a sample study on the presence of 50 European films selected among award winners and blockbusters on catalogues of VOD service providers in 7 EU Member States, as well as a description of the pan-European strategies of major on-demand audiovisual services providers such as Apple’s iTunes and Microsoft’s Xbox.

Finally, smart TVs are identified as a key driver for the growth of the VOD market.