First principles
In the category of “first principles” put “healthy competition is good for everyone.”
To be clear – saying “HEALTHY COMPETITION is good” implies that there is such a thing as “unhealthy competition.”
“Healthy competition” – is a version of the classic “win-win” scenario. Ok, obviously in many/most “competitions” someone “wins” and someone else “loses” – so we have to expand the “concept” of winning to include “short term winning” and “long term winning”.
Storytime – short term win vs long term success
Examples from the “world of sport” should be obvious – e.g. that “young talented team” that gets blown out by the “experienced champion team” obviously didn’t win THAT GAME. If that “young team” learned that they need to put in the practice time/effort to improve themselves – then THEY might be a championship team down the road.
When/if that happens players/coaches might look back and say, “it all really started when we got blown out by ‘so and so’ and learned how much we needed to improve to be a championship team” — again, short term win vs long term win/success.
Disruption
Of course, our hypothetical “young talented team” isn’t going to enjoy getting taught the lesson. If that team responds by saying “the game isn’t fair” or “we stink and will never be as good as those guys” – then the result of the hypothetical sport-game above was truly win/lose.
Sports cliches aside – switching to a “business industry competition” point of view. Competition is usually good for the consumer but always “disruptive” for companies.
If that “disruption” causes companies to improve their products and services – then we end up with a true “win/win” scenario.
Motion picture industry disruption
SO the “motion picture” industry has survived multiple “major disruptive events” in its 120+ year history.
The first “motion pictures” were short novelty films sold via nickelodeons – i.e. an individual put a nickel in the machine, then watched the short film through a viewing port.
Thomas Edison is said to have opposed the development of a “projector” (where an audience could all watch the same film at the same time) because it would “kill the motion picture industry.”
Mr Edison was probably correct – the projector “killed” the nickelodeon film market. The disruption in the market spurred demand for longer narrative features – i.e. “motion pictures” moved from “novelty” to “story telling.”
Then in the late 1920’s the motion picture industry was disrupted by “sound.” If you were a silent movie star – you probably thought that “sound” killed the motion picture industry.
Then in the 1950’s “television” came along and disrupted the motion picture industry again.
Easy to forget in 2021 is that the old “studio system” ended in 1948 (United States v. Paramount) – which much more than television “disrupted” the motion picture industry.
HOWEVER, you can make a good argument that “television” wouldn’t have had the actors/directors/writers/other technical talent to create that “golden age of American television” if the old “studio system” was still in place.
The “small screen” didn’t have the prestige of “the movies.” If given the choice between being a “movie star” or a “television star” – my guess is that most “talent” would choose “movie star.” BUT if the choice was between “starving” and “working in television” – well, that choice is obvious as well …
Television also didn’t have the big production and DISTRIBUTION costs of “the movies.” Which illustrates how “competition” was good for the average consumer (more “entertainment” choices), good for a great number of talented individuals, but bad for the “big movie business studio status quo.”
Off the top of my head – other disruptors:
- the “production code” ended in the late 1960’s. In 1968-ish the age based “ratings” system was introduced.
- “cable tv”/”pay tv” in general – HBO started in 1972
- disruption can come from “within” the industry as well – e.g. the “summer blockbuster” was accidently created in 1975 when “Jaws” ran into production problems and couldn’t be released until “summer”
Streaming
Once again the history of the “internet” is a story that can be told many ways.
With the caveat that putting an exact date on any “disruption” is problematic:
This time around I’ll point out that the “internet as industry changing disruption” first hit the financial markets (mid 1990s) with the availability of “stock” information and then the “online brokerages.” THEN the music industry was disrupted (late 1990s) by a combination of Napster/peer to peer file sharing and the DMCA.
In 2006 Google acquired YouTube (a story for another time) – but as I remember it “video streaming” was on everybody’s radar as the “next big thing.”
SO in 2007 when Netflix offered a “streaming movies” option it was really just the “other shoe dropping“.
In 2007 the streaming options were about being “on demand.” i.e. “streaming” in 2007 was a disruptor to “television” NOT to “the movies.”
the cinema experience
Then 2020 happened and COVID-19 lockdowns forced movie theaters to shutdown.
To be honest I don’t think it has ever been “easy” to be in the “movie theater” business. Technology disrupting the “theater business” is another post – but again for the most part the disruptions have been “win/win.”
From a THEATER point of view – the movies are almost a “loss leader.” The typical theater makes much more money off of selling popcorn/concessions than they do from ticket sales.
SO (again in general) what the theater is selling is the “movie going experience” – i.e. Something that you can’t replicate at home – whether that is from renting a DVD or paying for a “streaming option.”
… me thinking out loud …
From a profit and loss/return on investment point of view – the folks doing best are probably the “second run” theaters.
Once upon a time – in the “pre digital” world – the “second run” theaters got the “movie film canisters” AFTER the “first run theaters” had shown the movie for several weeks.
Since the physical film degrades slightly each time the film is run through the projector – the “second run theater” was also a “second class” viewing experience – and so the ticket prices were also much lower BUT the price of concessions were not much lower.
Remember video tape and then DVDs were only a minor disruptor for “theaters.” For the “movie industry” video tapes and DVDs became another lucrative market – to the point where it became rare for “big Hollywood movies” to lose money (subject for another post 😉 )
My point is that the primary demographics for “second run theaters” is (probably) “younger folks looking to go out.” The movie is almost a secondary concern, spending time with friends/socializing the goal.
Back in days of “video rental chains” it was common for a movie to be available to rent for home viewing while the movie was being shown in “second run” theaters.
Whatever the demographic differences between the two market segments – there were people that would rent the movie and watch it at home, and there were also people that would pay to see it in the “second run theater.”
(btw: if you want to “watch/examine/interpret” the movie – then home viewing is always better. if you want the movie “experience” – that is better in a theater)
td;dr
If someone want to say that “streaming” killed Blockbuster/Hollywood video – I’ll agree with that.
HOWEVER – “streaming” is good for the motion picture industry in general. Disruptive, yes – but still “good.”