The fact that a new business always creates winners and losers, is not new: the digitization itself, but from the start with a huge, euphoric expectation confronted, they so far have not even been able to fulfill. Thus, the expected major revenue yet largely failed, which is a continuous processing of new business due to the expected revenue numbers but still being able to achieve. Interesting in the development is that now firms benefit, but even losers to complain and all that, although the digital movie distribution, strictly speaking, still in its infancy. One thing is certainly clear: the Hauptprofiteur Digitization is and will remain the consumer. Never before has it been so easy, convenient and especially cost effective for him on an almost unlimited amount of content can be accessed – and that from the home sofa, from the laptop in a café or even from your mobile phone on the subway. He is no longer limited to local video stores and their offer, does not need any more dealers, he logs simply to the internet and online shopping. In addition, he is also no longer bound by television, but his own program director. To put it on a denominator: The consumer decides what he sees when he sees and where he sees it. However, it must be admitted that too much supply also may lead to problems: The consumer may be lost in the jungle of content, special filters and search tools will help him in the thicket of the bid to find what he seeks. Renowned aggregators with a large catalog of rights such as Amazon or iTunes are certainly the big winners of digital distribution. You benefit by cheap distribution channels and will also receive as much content as never before. Since its warehouse located in virtual space, the costs remain despite increased content absolutely manageable. Aggregators already sell only finished goods and are therefore no risk during the production process. Their revenues they generate by selling shares in the percentage. The “weight” of the rights holder is, the more it needs to be transferred. Up to 50 percent, the rights holder, which is compared with the values from the old world, very much. The other 50 percent are considered for the pure distribution and for the settlement of the sale certainly not bad. 50 percent may be a single product sold on the Internet can sometimes only make a few cents, but the combination of all sales, the big Internet merchants can have, finally the cashier to ring. An aggregator is therefore neither in the production of content invest, he is still actively involved. He contributes absolutely no risk and is often the same proportion as the manufacturer. Sold the product is not as desired, is the dealer for not more dramatic, it can be removed from the sum of total sales profit. The producer or holder of rights is by its very nature of the sales figures of its product-dependent as much as it is mentioned as Amazon. Depending on the size of the production company may not simultaneously produced several films, in order to compensate for any revenue shortfalls to be. The right holder has, however, in the new world the advantage of its Internet distribution rights are not exclusive per se must be awarded. Thus, he is not bound by a single trader, much more can he multiple Internet merchants and download platforms, and so once again – similar to iTunes or Amazon sizes – from the sum of the various revenue benefit. The next winners are those who best relationships with the major digital distributors have. That not only have many existing customers on the Internet, which sit in front of the PC, they reach the customer where mE remain at home prefer films to be seen: In the living room. Either through strategic partnerships with clever set-top box manufacturers (eg Amazon with Sony, or Xbox 360) by its own hardware or services like AppleTV, the customer can film the whole range comfortably on their own TV consumption. That this group of consumers is most likely prepared to offer the content to pay. For film producers, however, it is not easy in the range to be included, this is usually only possible through middlemen. Very strict in the choice of content is offered with the Apple iTunes service. The background may well be that the quality of the products above a certain minimum keep. The interpretation of the term “quality” here lies solely with Apple. Whether a stock market-oriented company like Apple here, or rather commercial but to the substantive criteria oriented, it can be speculated. A look at the home pages of the services reveals consistently announced and banners for blockbusters and hits. For smaller productions, it is usually only possible via middlemen for Internet retailers to be an application such as prominent placement on the home page but rather the exception. Systems such as recommendations or evaluations (see Chapter 7.2), however, help in the mass of the bid to be found. However, it is a fallacy to believe that products with the best reviews and most recommendations automatically Home of the place or the customer will be proposed. It was observed that the U.S. online video store Netflix movies with better licensing terms, but worse, or at least as good ratings as a list of prominent films, where their income is lower. Next Thought this would mean that independent films, which are usually not as good as licensing studio films that have a realistic chance against blockbusters listed or advertised to be. It is very likely but rather a combination of actual sales and royalty terms to be. As with any new development can be one does not materialize: the losers! To view the possibilities of digitization best use we must be prepared to adapt to the changing market conditions to establish classical and in the old world to leave the established paths and new – though not immediately go – at least to know (keyword: Freemium chapter 8.2.3), where necessary to be able to operate flexibly. Here is some important points to consider, so that digital distribution is not a priori to be the case. The mentality “movie, there will always be given – no one needs movies on mobile phone” is surely a one-way street. Obviously, the movie does not disappear, but the viewing habits are changing rapidly now, and a Halt this movement is not predictable. Was the former cinema is often the only possibility of making a film to be able to see, it has this role is no longer inne; movies anytime and anywhere consumed. The cinema has its original supremacy taking important, who is now in the cinema seat drops, where the film experience to indulge, either appreciates the social event itself or the cinematographic, the atmospheric effect of the cinema screen. The new user is in a position to decide where, when and by what medium he wants to see a movie. No longer the media will decide, but the user. The extreme opposite “The Internet is the new cash cow of the film also has a relatively short survival time. Far too many issues – legal, technical and user-driven – are still open to serious Revenues are possible, will take some time. Who now – worn by many experts and the self-hype from the media – a lot of money hastily into his film projects is because he believes it safely through the digitization of the consumer to bring the latest is the follow-up project, the money out or missing, because he is likely to have generated little revenue to log in again to the risk of a financial investment to be able to suspend. Although it seems at first glance quite realistic film with a small budget 10,000 Euros to be able to refinance, however, must not be forgotten that exactly in this area, the competition, due to democratization, will improve dramatically and it is the situation in another Light is: Even the refinancing of smaller amounts may be extreme problems or much longer than a cash-flow plan has. That See will also have those whose revenue model is solely based on advertising. Because they are so dependent on the number of actual reads. And even from the ancient world, we know: If the mass be achieved, you need either mon
ey or you need to be more commercial than cultural issues oriented. Moreover, the advertisers determine where their advertising is used. For “difficult” topics, or unconventional films is a risk that postings materialize. The traditional, linear television is losing viewers, although not (yet) such an extent as feared. The older audience may even increase the television reported. However, changing the visual and usage habits of consumers, not the media is crucial, rather the content. Consumers are looking for their favorite content and get it there, where he currently is available. A logical Consequence of the lack of viewing of TV channels is the reduction of his productions. As a way to try TV stations to maximize their reach by using new digital distribution channels (eg Hulu). Href=”http://digitalfilmdistribution.com/abstrakt/” next