Apple and the Studios Need To Step Up With Rent-To-Own on iTunes

I can already tell that iTunes Movie Rentals (which I’ve been calling for since at least last April upon predicting the struggles Apple TV would have) are going to be a big hit – within 5 minutes of browsing the only hundred or so titles offered so far, I found RoboCop – which I have never seen but have been meaning to – pushed the ‘Rent Movie’ button, done. The classic iTunes impulse buy is back.

Sure I could have gotten in my car, driven down to Blockbuster and rented it, but that not only requires movement, it requires time and memory. How often do you go into Blockbuster thinking there was a movie you wanted to rent but having no idea what it was? I do that quite a bit. I could try to ask an employee for help or walk up and down the isle to jog my memory, but more likely I’ll find something else I’ll want to rent by then, and maybe another movie I want even more on the way to the register, I’ve been known to be in a Blockbuster for an hour while I debate what to get – it’s tiresome. Oh yeah – and the movie would be more expensive to rent at Blockbuster.

Apple notched a huge win by getting all the major movie studios on board for rentals. By far the best line of the keynote today is when Steve Jobs sheepishly shows off the first screen of iTunes Movie Rental partners – mostly the smaller guys – then hits the button for his next slide with: “Oh and by the way – these 6 too.” and reveals all the major Hollywood studios and starts strutting. Great moment. When all of their back catalogs come online over the next several months, iTunes Movie Rentals are going to explode. And yet I’m left wanting – a bit.

What if I really love a movie I just rented? I could potentially buy it, but at full price. Wouldn’t it make more sense if, just as iTunes allows you to complete an album for a discounted fee if you download one track, that they would allow you to take the rental fee you paid off the price of the movie purchase? So RoboCop would now be $6.98 rather than $9.99 to purchase – a much more attractive price if I like the movie.

It is no doubt the studios who are against such a idea, but I think that is thick-headed thinking. If people feel they are actually getting a deal in buying something they are much more likely to do so. If a consumer finds a movie they like a lot but don’t necessarily love they might think to themselves ‘well I already paid $2.99 or $3.99 to rent it, so why not just pay the other $6 or $7 bucks to own it – just in case I ever want to watch it again?’ If they don’t purchase it, the likelihood that they ever rent the exact same movie again at $3 or $4 is probably not too good. I think the studios would find such a maneuver would help digital sales greatly.

Also think about what happens if you for whatever reason miss your 24-hour window for a rental after you start watching it. If you wanted to finish the movie you’d have to pay your $3 to $4 to rent it again – at this point, if you liked it, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to spend just a few dollars more and be able to own the movie rather then only temporarily have it again?

Of course one major hiccup in such a plan is that many of the movie studio are only on board for movie rentals via iTunes and not movie sales yet. If Apple were to push hard to get a rent-to-own model in place by the studios that sell movies, I think they would find the other studios wanting to come to the table to sell movies in their store as well.

iTunes Movie Rentals is going to be huge and it will drive iTunes Movie sales, but why not do right by the customer and really spur those sales by implementing a rent-to-own policy as well? The studios should consider that idea and think about the customers lest they find themselves in 10 years in the position the music industry is in today

More thoughts:

  • Listening to music is a good past time especially when you are on a trip or when you are cleaning the house because you just moved recently.
blog comments powered by Disqus