With the this blog focusing on the media trends that exist around us, I decided to make my final blog post of the semester on the trends that may become popular in 2010. Just as I was going to write this article solely based off the top of my head, CNN.com published a story discussing the trends that we should watch for in the upcoming year.

Some of the trends that the article begins with is the “real-time” update trend becoming more popular through Facebook and Twitter. Google Wave is supposed to debut next year, a crossover networking system that combines instant messaging, e-mail, and wiki. Another is location-sharing services that CNN dedicated an entire story to a few weeks ago. Foursquare may become a huge trend that is able to take on other social networking sites like Facebook through its use of rewarding users for visiting restaurants, museums, businesses etc.

Click Here For Foursquare.com

As we have witnessed over the past year, the ability to stream television shows and movies on the internet has come a trend that no one could have predicted. People have stopped using their TV’s all together and only use the power of their PC to basically do, everything. The future of sites like Hulu, AppleTV, and Netflix will be questioned with copyright issues, but Hulu has been able to maintain a huge amount of popularity. Next year, Hulu will be introducing “Epix”, a streaming service that allows the user to watch movies.

Click Here For Hulu.com

Social gaming has also become a massive media trend over the year through the use of social networking sites (i.e. Farmville), which has more active users than Twitter. Over trends that CNN notes is the incorporation of mobile payments with Twitter’s new adapter, Square, a device used to swipe a credit card on your iPhone along with the importance of fame on the web along with the elimination of privacy through public sharing.

Overall, these trends are more than anyone could have anticipated 10 or even 5 years ago. Social networking has taken off with the mass popularity of Twitter and Facebook. Every inch of the media is located on these sites and you cannot go an entire day without hearing news about any of these social sites. One of the trends that I found most interesting in the article was Foursquare. After browsing around the website, the concept is simple. Users create a profile and update their status and tell which locations they are at. They receive points, badges, awards, etc for visiting a various amount of places. Although this may not seem like the most fun thing to do, it offers more than Twitter does. Somehow Twitter has gained massive popularity through the use of a simple updating system, mainly due to the increased amount of celebrities that have “tweeted”. Media trends have drastically changed over the past year and the future is highly unpredictable. There is no doubt that we will see more social networking sites could out of the woodwork to compete with Facebook, but honestly, Facebook has everything that people want and right now, will remain supreme. With more celebrities each and everyday using social networking sites, fame has become a crucial factor in the popularity of some trends.

The debate over streaming music, television and film has become a serious issue with many believing that anything “free” on the internet should not be allowed, placing a charge on every piece of information that users desire. If you ask me, eventually there will be nothing free on the internet or all of the free stuff will be the content that no one wants to see. Hulu will eventually start charging for the shows that they offer and sites such as Pandora and LaLa will eventually fade away.

But when predicting the future of media trends, your guess is as good as mine. All that I know is that mass media has evolved over the past year and I’m sure next year will look a lot different from the last.

Yes, another Google post. Can’t these guys stop making headlines?

If you think back a decade or so, only a small amount of people knew what “Google” was. Yes, it was a search engine that ranked in the lower standards among big-cats like Yahoo! and AOL. Fast forward to the present day and you can’t go an entire day without hearing something about the massive Google corporation that has made its presence known in every aspect of technology. It has evolved as a search engine to eliminate Yahoo! all together as a competitor and created several applications within their search engine to personalize the “searching” experience. There was the creation of iGoogle, Google Groups, Froogle, Google Blogs and the likes that I could go on for days.

On Monday, Google took another huge step in their search engine takeover. Now not only will users be able to search using text and voice, but also the use of a photograph. Google Goggles has a database of over a million images that it analyzes once it receives an image from a user on their phone. It can recognize books, music covers, art, landmarks, places, logos and more. Ever viewed a piece of art work or a landmark and wondered where it originated, the history of it, why it was created and so forth? No need to struggle to find the image on the internet. Take out your phone, snap a picture, upload it on Google on your phone and the search engine will automatically find the results on the image.

The CNN.com (<- LINK) article offers a real-world example: Vic Gundotra, VP of Google’s Engineering Program,  said that when a guest came by for dinner, he snapped a photo of a wine bottle she gave him to assess its merits. The result–”hints of apricot and hibiscus blossom”–went far beyond his expertise, but that didn’t stop him from sharing the opinion over dinner.

Take a look at the commercial here…

This commercial truly amazed me at how search engines have transformed over the years.

The Google corporation has denied using facial recognition, but maybe they will start to work with the FBI to catch America’s most wanted, who knows. The ends are unimaginable for Google as they have evolved over the years to become one of the major powerhouses of the web. Goggles will be available on all Android phones and eventually all computers, but is still located in Google “Labs”, undergoing several tests still in beta. Whats next for Google after this huge news? Will they eventually be able to read mind and search items without having us to even use the keyboard? Although it seems doubtful, you can’t count on Google on anything at this point.

Check out LaLa here.

For those that do not know what LaLa exactly is, think Pandora, without having to type any kind of music artist in to get a playlist. The music service, that hasn’t gained much popularity on it’s own, will search the users hard drive and create an online music library, painless and free. The user has the access to type in any artist they want as well, if they are not at a local computer or have no downloaded music. This eliminates the need for downloading songs as individuals can now stream music onto their computer without having to pay for it. But doesn’t this sound all too familiar?

Pandora.com offers the same concept, users are allowed to enter a music artist or genre and the “music genome project” will establish a playlist. Pandora does not scan hard drives, maybe do to the fact that not every person may be at home with downloaded music. But over the past months, the system has been severely attacked by artists who believe there music should not be freely accessed on the internet. Pandora has established a wide variety of restrictions including advertisements that appear between songs, a limit of 40 hours per month of Pandora usage and the ability to only skip through 5 songs per day. So why is Apple becoming involved in this mess?

The same reason that Google has become involved in almost every single aspect of technology. Apple wants to make a name for itself and has through their iPhone apps and mass popularity. But what is the future of streaming music services? I still listen to Pandora almost every day, even though I still have an iPod with over 3,000 songs. It brings me new music that I have never heard and creates a playlist that I could have never imagined.

However, I have become disgusted with the use of advertisements and the limiting that Pandora places on users. If Apple uses LaLa to its own advantage and creates a music-streaming system that seems more appealing, the users of Pandora will easily switch over to Apple, an organization that has massive amounts of credibility.

So if anyone thinks that Google is perfect, it may be time rethink your opinion. With Google being the largest and greatest search engine on the web, there is a sort of drive to get your image, webpage, blog or whatever it may be on one of the first pages of searching Google. I am sure everyone has searched their name, hoping to find something important within the first few results, but become disappointed when they find a tax-attorney with the same name as you who lives in Oklahoma on the first page. The question of how Google transmits the results to their search engine is still unclear, but the corporation took a big hit last week when Michelle Obama’s name was linked to a photographed picture morphed with her and an ape appeared as the first search result when searching her. Google claimed that it was a bug in the system that allowed the picture to be shown first, but many fired at Google for their racist picture of the first lady. The image still remains up on the site, given the correct search results, so Google has no intention of removing the photo. Right or wrong? You decide.

An article on CNN.com writes: (<- LINK)

As of Tuesday, the image did not appear within the first several hundred results for a Google Images search for “Michelle Obama,” although it remained the first result produced by an image search for the words “Michelle Obama ape.”

But how did the image magically appear on Google’s search engine as the top hit? Google factors in over 200 algorithms to producing their results for anything that is searched, websites, books, blogs, pictures, video, basically anything and everything. The question comes into play: Is this a matter of free speech or should Google be focused on issues like this? Many believe that the photo was a clear strike at President Obama and the use of racism, while others believe they have a right to put any kind of material they want on the internet.

“We have a bias toward free expression,” Google spokesman Scott Rubin told CNN. “That means that some ugly things will show up.”

Yes that is true, ugly things may show up, but you are the ones who control what actually appears on the site. It is up to the administrators to watch what their “system” selects as the top search results. There is a difference between ugly and racist, there is no gray area, it is clearly defined and Google crossed it.

CNN writes:

“Sullivan believes Google may have tweaked its search algorithm after finding a bug in its system that caused the Obama image to climb on its results pages.”When it doesn’t do what they want it to do, they go back and start tweaking things,” he said. “Long term, you look at how they got there. When you search for Michelle Obama, do you really think that kind of image is one of the most popular things about her on the Internet? I don’t think so.” Rubin would not comment on whether any changes were made in the wake of the Michelle Obama incident. But Google and other engines are constantly tinkering with their processes.”

Although this has happened before with people forcing search results, as Google execs call it “bombing”:

“In 2003, critics of former President George W. Bush gamed the system by repeatedly linking the words “miserable failure” to his official White House biography. Supporters of the Republican president apparently responded, pushing former Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s autobiography to No. 2 on the search results for the phrase.In 2007, comedian and talk-show host Stephen Colbert’s fans pushed to link him to the phrase, “greatest living American” — an effort that worked briefly before Google reversed it.”

Even though these things have happened before, they have not been as offensive or as targeting as the Michelle Obama picture. Sure Obama has been criticized before with his “controversial” actions, such as his fist-pound with his wife after he won the election, or even more recently with Michelle Obama using the word “baby-mama”. But this has truly crossed the line and the power of search engines has come under heavy pressure. It was no the Obama’s doing this, but an outside source who was invovled, and possible even Google itself, who knows.

Google has the power of the world wide web, but it will be interesting to see if they take any necessary measures to cure the problem of producing negative search results. If you ask me, Google will not change anything. They produced controversy with bascially one of the most popular and powerful women in the world, the First Lady. Not much action has been made towards Google, so why should they alter their search enginge? There is no need if they still remain the “superpower” on the web.

Here is a video invovling the response by Google (Sorry if it’s from France):

If you have a “LinkedIn” account as well as a “Twitter” account, you may want to rethink your options in terms of social networking. An article written by CNN states that LinkedIn and Twitter have officially formed a partnership allowing users to share information across the two networks.

LinkedIn is typically used for individuals who are seeking a job and use the social networking database to upload their resume and search for employers. Twitter has gone mainstream after it’s 140-word status update started to involve celebrities, sports stars, and has become and outlet for news and banter. After making a status update on Twitter, a “tweet”, it will automatically get sent to your LinkedIn account and posted on there.

From CNN.com article:

“When you set your status on Linkedin you can now tweet it as well, amplifying it to your followers and real-time search services like Twitter Search and Bing,” said Allen Blue, LinkedIn’s vice president of product strategy, in a post on the company’s blog.

Although the partnership may seem prosperous for the two social networks who are becoming bigger by the month, one has to question why they would want their “tweets” published on their LinkedIn account. LinkedIn is supposed to be a “professional” networking site used to find a job, contact potential employers and put yourself out there. I have seen many Twitter updates that involve useless information, criticisms of people and certain things that an employer would not want to see.

In my eyes, LinkedIn has transformed from one of the only professional social networking sites onto the  same level as any other site like Facebook, which is plagued with useless applications. I hope that those with both a Twitter account and a LinkedIn account have the choice to publish their status updates on the given site. If this is not the case, then it is going to be difficult for people to find a job if all they do is “tweet” on celebrity gossip and binge-drinking.

I have been patiently waiting a while now to find a sport’s story that I could include in this media blog and I think I finally found my moment. Although this blog may be on the boundary line for a “media” post, I feel that it has a large part to do with a media’s source, the effects it has on the public and the overall trend that a specific medium is using.

There has been a series of articles written for ESPN The Magazine involving behind the scenes details of the National Football League. The stores include the increased violence on the field, rookie hazing and ultimately, details that the ordinary fan would not know without the insight of the author. The only problem is that the writer is unknown, keeping his identity in secret from the public and more importantly, the league and its players. With ESPN being the “world wide leader in sports”, they have the biggest sports magazine in competition with Sports Illustrated and consequently, the biggest reputation in sports to protect. ESPN has issued these articles for over a couple months now and informs the reader that the individual writing the article, known as “Player X” is an NFL superstar. (I would’ve posted the link for the articles, but you have to be an ESPN inSider, which costs 3.99$ per month. I just so happened to have gotten lucky and read the articles through a third party source, which I cannot name.)

“Game On!” is a section in USA Today and writes on the “Player X” idea:

“ESPN The Magazine is launching a column by an NFL star dubbed “Player X” who’ll give readers his anonymous take on on athletes’ extra-marital affairs, dalliances with groupies and other taboo topics, says editor-in-chief Gary Belsky. In his first piece hitting newsstands Friday, the player admits that not only are many “negative” tales about pro athletes true, they’re actually worse in some cases. Player’s X’s teammates, coaches, agent and family don’t know he’s writing the column, Belsky says. It will be his call whether he wants to identify himself after penning 10-12 columns during the 2009 season.

(LINK FOR ARTICLE!)

An excerpt from ESPN The Magazine:

“I am Player X. I’m a professional athlete, and I’m here to give the readers of The Magazine my perspective — an NFL player’s perspective — as honestly as I can.

It’s a little crazy of me, to be honest. No one knows I’m doing this — not my teammates, coaches, family or representatives — but I think it’s important. Why? Because people talk about athletes all the time, but a lot of them don’t know what they’re talking about. I want to share what athletes think, straight from inside the locker room. I’m not here to snitch or call people out. I just want to show that the life of an athlete isn’t always what it appears to be.”

(LINK FOR EXCERPT)

The question is: How far has “Player X” gone and will it go further? The most recent article involving the increased violence in the NFL, tells readers that the game is more dangerous than ever and someone eventually will end up being killed on the gridiron. “Player X” calls out Pittsburgh Steelers receiver Hines Ward for his cheap shots and compares the game to war and more like being out on the battlefield.

After reading these articles, I was shocked to learn of all this as most of the violence is hidden from the viewers in the stands or at home. We see players getting hurt all of the time on the field, but the real pain comes in the locker room and hospitals where players receive cortisone shots and soak in ice baths for hours. After I was finished with the last line, I had a whole new opinion on the game of football.

My problem is that what happens “Player X’s” identity is leaked or he tells everyone who he is? His reputation may be tarnished on and off the field for calling out players and giving the public insight that they normally would have not been able to know about.  You can count on it that there will be some players looking for revenge. If I was Hines Ward, I would be furious that another player is telling the sports mass that he performs cheap shots and seeks to injure players. How will “Player X’s” teammates respond? Will they support him or think that what he is doing is wrong? What about the coaches? Owners?

Not only is this damaging for the player, but what about the media source where this person is outletting their information? No doubt that ESPN The Magazine is prospering from the anonymous superstar in the NFL, but if the identity is found, how will the public respond to ESPN? Is this the new marketing scheme? Will we, as readers, want more of this? Do some think that what ESPN is doing isn’t right and only a professional player should know what the game is like? Many questions still remain, but the unknown identity of this player makes the situation more gray.

If you were to ask me, if the player’s identity is revealed some players in the league ARE going to resent him, while others will support him and believe that everyone should know the true meaning behind the game. The magazine will become even more popular as more articles are being written. Will this become the new trend? Will ESPN attempt to hire other “insiders” or “spies” in different professional sports such as the MLB or NHL to generate popularity in their media’s industry? This seems to be a new trend in the media, but the future is still unknown. It will be interesting to see if ESPN is able to keep the writer’s identity hidden for a long period of time, without hearing some fight from the league and its players. As a huge NFL fan, I am looking forward to more articles by “Player X”, since information and insight like this is impossible to understand without some inside knowledge.

But the question still remains: Is being a hidden identity in the sports world the new outlet? And foremost, who is “Player X” and how will his future play out?

As an avid Facebook and Twitter user, I have had my share of updates posting where I am going on a certain day, what time, what I’m doing during school and so on. I’m sure every person on Facebook has updated their status saying their bored at home or want someone to talk to or recently bought something on Amazon.com. But how has this gone to where so called “cyber-criminals” can actually fiend off of this information and use it to their own advantage?

An article on CNN.com (<- LINK) reveals that experts are starting to worry that people are giving away bits of personal information that criminals on the internet can use for such crimes like identity theft. There are even malicious applications that are surfacing through Twitter and Facebook where a person would click on a link and all of their information would stream from their computer to a third party network. Saved passwords, cookies, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc. (Basically cracking the safe for criminals.)

An interesting tactic that the article states:

“Once a user’s account has been compromised, it creates opportunities for new scams. In one, a cybercriminal takes over a Facebook member’s account and pretends to be stranded in another country. The scammer then asks the user’s friends to wire money to them. This scam has been happening with increasing frequency, wrote Facebook software engineer Alok Menghrajani Tuesday on one of the site’s blogs. Facebook is working with Western Union to identify these schemes and has “improved a number of our automated systems to better handle this unique class of scam,” he wrote.”

But let’s start to think about this realistically here: Although the social networking database is a haven for criminals, the internet has been plagued with cyber-criminals for years now. Hackers have been able to crack codes and an individuals computer, steal their credit card number, ip address and social security number in a matter of seconds. Social networking sites such as LinkedIN and Myspace are only making it easier for the “bad-guys” to get information.

My take is that people have to be really ignorant to put their private information on Facebook and think that nothing will happen to them in the future. I mean if you want to protect yourself from any kind of internet crime, its best not to put your social security number on your computer, or keep on using the same password over and over. Even better, I have even seen people putting their phone numbers and addresses on Twitter updates. These people are asking for trouble when they put their private information on the web.

With all of this said, the internet has had this sort of problem before with people getting their identities stolen, credit cards being maxed out with unknown purchases and even a lockout of their entire computer with their passwords being changed mysteriously. The problem that social networking sites are having is not a good one and something that will have to be changed in order for cyber-crimes to not happen. But mostly it is the individual that is making the problem even more frequent, therefore it is up to them to make sure that they don’t give away any information or click on a random application link.

In the article:

“Another popular ability of Facebook and Twitter, the status update of your current location, could also lead to trouble, Ostrow said. Mashable reported in June that one man in Arizona had tweeted he was going on vacation and came home to find his house burglarized.”

Think people, if you don’t want anything to happen to you, don’t make it accessible for everyone to see. That is the reason why they do call it the “WORLD WIDE web”. Everyone in the world is capable of seeing what you are doing at every moment, that is, if you make it available to them.

Take a look at this spoof video showing what happens when your facebook account can be stolen in the office:

It is to no one’s amazement that social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook (BOTH LINKS) have become overly popular in today’s media world. You would have to find someone who lives in a cave in the United States that doesn’t know what a “tweet” is or “facebooking” your friend. But over the past year, there have been several disputes about how far one’s comments can go on Twitter or Facebook.

There have been several instances when celebrities, sports stars and ordinary people have been fined thousands of dollars for an update they made on Twitter. (Last summer, San Diego Charger’s player Antonio Cromartie made a comment about training camp food and was fined an obscene amount.)

An article (<-LINK) in the New York Times elaborates on this situation, explaining the controversy between freedom of speech and the use of short updates on Twitter. The owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban, was fined $25,000 after a game for criticizing referees on his Twitter page, while Perez Hilton brought Demi Moore to court over her “tweet” about his web page.

The question still remains: How far does the constitution go in protecting one’s freedom of speech? Can anyone update their Twitter page with any kind of material they want and be free from prosecution? Apparently not.

But this seems to be the latest trend in today’s media world. When you have something to say to someone, you don’t call them out to their face or through a phone call, it’s by logging on to your Twitter page, using 140 characters or less and going off on someone. If more and more people continue to do this, especially celebs and sports stars, can they honestly fine everyone who engages the act? And to think that these people take these Twitter updates so personally as to call upon a lawyer to step in and fight for them. I could only imagine the conversation between the lawyer and the “victim” over someone’s update on Twitter.

Even when not defaming someone or writing something harsh, some are still banned from using Twitter. (Cincinnati Bengals wide-receiver, Chad Ochocinco was banned from “tweeting” during games), but updates his page before and after every game.

So how far will the law extend to prevent people from “harsh and crude”
words on Twitter? It remains to be seen, but it seems as if the “Twitter War” between some individuals is only beginning.

If you ask me, people have the voice to say what ever they want. Being that we do live in America, land of the free, with all of these constitutional laws, someone should be able to voice their opinion about a particular subject, even if it is does involve a person. But many believe that the boundary is drawn when you “defame” somebody, as Mark Cuban did, bashing the NBA referee that presided over the game.

In the Times article there is a quote that I found to rule against this defamation argument:

“According to legal experts, much of what is said on Twitter is opinion — even nasty name-calling — which means it is protected speech. “When you look at a lot of the things people are complaining about it is not actual defamation, it is a statement of opinion,” said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. “In many cases, it’s about two people who had a breakdown in a relationship and took that online.””

To many, the defamation is just opinion in which case, under the United States Constitution we have the right to state one. Only the future will be able to tell us how the law, Twitter and individuals will handle the situation that they are presented with. In my opinion: “Tweet” away, you have the right to.

It seems that no matter what you are watching on television, it is impossible to escape the dead. The television and movie culture for the past few years has embraced the ideas and concepts of incorporating vampires and zombies into their scripts. Ranging from the popular movie “Twilight”, which features a human female falling in love with a vampire to television shows such as HBO’s “True Blood” and movies like “28 Days Later”, there is no reason to doubt that the “culture of the dead”, is truly upon us.

In an article (<-link) from the MSNBC website, writer Michael Avila believes that the “zombie” industry is catching up quickly to vampire-themed productions, and with the upcoming release of “Zombieland”, the undead has gained a lot of attention in the past years. While the article incorporates the roots of zombie-related movies, how vampire-related scripts are on the decline and shows how humans can relate more to zombies, the article that I am dedicating right now turns to the trend of the “undead” in media productions. (Completely refuting the idea based around the article)

I believe that the trend of zombies and vampires within our television shows and movies has gone far enough. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t looking for it, while surfing channels on the television you are bound to find at least one show or movie that involves a zombie or vampire. The zombie-theme industry became so popular with George Romero’s movie, “Night of the Living Dead” in 1968, but has evolved into more than that. First horror movies, then to music videos (“Thriller), to today’s culture of movies including comedies of zombies including “Shaun of the Dead” and “Zombieland”. With vampires, the story is almost the same. It started with horror movies in the early 50′s and 60′s like Dracula and evolved into comedy and television shows (Buffy: The Vampire Slayer) as well as videogames that people are addicted to. (True Blood, Resident Evil, etc.)

I am one to say that I have never been entertained by the concept of vampires and zombies, but the movie and television industry has heavily prospered from these themes. “Twilight” over the past year has grossed an estimated amount of $382,511,081, while the movie “Dawn of the Dead” a re-make of an earlier 80′s movie earned $96,990,765. (http://www.the-numbers.com/)

It is hard to imagine that the culture of television and movie production will ever stray away from the concept of the “undead”. They have made a ton of money off of the idea and if there is a demand from the public such as the “Twilight” sequel (mainly 16 year-old girls) or the next season of the CW’s “Vampire Diaries”, then why should they stop? But I do not understand why people have become so engulfed in this type of culture. Starting from the 80′s the idea of zombies and vampires has been the same, but viewers still are obsessed with the love story in HBO’s “True Blood” or anticipate the release of comedy-horror movies such as “Zombieland”. The article states that producers are also creating a zombie-comedy movie entitled “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” a reversal of Jane Austen’s classic literary piece. (A joke, that isn’t really funny) There has been less “real” horror movies with serial-killers, less war themes,  less love stories, less comedies and overall, a smaller amount of movies and television shows that DON’T involved an undead creature. I don’t understand how directors and screen-writers can imagine different ideas of a zombie or vampire production when there have been hundreds of them created. They all look the same, act a certain way, do the same rituals, the same story, the same everything. Why is the public so attached to the idea of the undead?

Personally, I hope that the trend of zombies and vampires in our culture of media truly dies. We have seen enough of the blood-sucking and human eating creatures then we could have possibly imagined. I’m sure that George Romero did not think that his creation of “Night of the Living Dead” would have such an impact on the movie industry as it did. And who would’ve thought that the concept of “Dracula” would evolve into a full-blown obsessive love story like “Twilight” has.

*This “Time” magazine article talks about an actual disorder called “OTD: Obsessive Twilight Disorder” (<- LINK)

It puts a knot in my stomach when I turn on the television to see shows on every channel involving a vampire, then to see trailers of movies revolving around the idea of surviving a zombie attack. (I mean if you can’t survive a zombie invasion by now, you must not be watching any movies).  This is what the movie industry has turned to and anchored on and it seems as if they don’t plan on moving from this culture any time soon.

The price of watching a new movie in today’s world is obvious to any person who has been to the movie theater, local mall or video store. When we head to the movies, we expect to pay over 10$ for a ticket to see a two-hour film that may not be everything that we expected. The same goes for renting and buying DVD’s. A new DVD can cost anywhere from 12$ to 25$, while a rental from Blockbuster Video will charge you $4.99. The price of everything in economy has increased and the movie business is no exception, however there may be another alternative to watching your favorite movies. Redbox , lead by President Mitch Lowe, is a digital-DVD-renting system that has kiosks placed in local areas such as supermarkets and restaurants. Renters can select a movie from a touch-screen for only 1$, watch the DVD and return the disc within the allotted time. This method seems like the most viable option for watching movies, but the New York Times (<- LINK) reports that the rental service could cause serious damage to the movie industry.

Movie industries such as Universal and Warner Brothers are restricting Redbox from allowing new rentals to be placed on the “market” as soon as they hit stores in order to protect sales. Many believe that Redbox is on the rise, up against severe competition from other rental outlets and traditional stores. The NYT reports that, “Redbox and its vending rivals now have 19 percent of the rental market, compared with 36 percent for rent-by-mail services (Netflix) and 45 percent for traditional stores, according to the NPD Group, a market research company. NPD estimates that vending will grow to a 30 percent share by the end of next year, at the expense of traditional stores.” The number of kiosks has increased across the country and other business outlets such as Blockbuster are attempting to install DVD-rental kiosks to match Redbox.

“Analysts believe that a cheap rental service may make buyers think twice before purchasing a DVD at a high cost. The $1 price is not the main issue for the studios, although they do not like that, either; it is the timing. New DVDs sell for about $25. Video-on-demand services price them at about $5. Multi-day rentals of new titles cost $4.99 at Blockbuster. Now there is a $1 option at the same time. That could put downward pressure on the industry’s price structure.

“Anyone whose business involves selling movies should be enormously concerned,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Research.”

As an avid movie watcher, it is possible how one could see the effects that Redbox could have on the industry. I have a collection of over 50 movies, but haven’t purchased one in over 5 months as the prices of new DVD’s have increased even higher. I would rather rent the movie at a local blockbuster to enjoy it, but still I am charged over 5$. And I shouldn’t even begin to write on the price of a movie ticket at a theater as it will get my blood pressure rising. (Seriously, who wants to spend 14$ on a movie ticket to have food served to us? How lazy have we become?) But getting back on track, the surge of Redbox could become a serious killer to the movie industry. If one can rent a movie for 1$, there is no need to make a decision to go to Blockbuster or Best Buy to purchase the movie for 20 times the price. I can say that I have used Redbox before at my local Waldbaums and the service is extremely easy. You insert your credit card or debit card, select the movie and instantly it is in your hand and the customer is only 1$ less rich. Honestly, what other deal is better than watching a movie for a buck that would cost 5 times as much to rent across the street?

The only pitfall to Redbox would be the release times of new movies. If we are anticipating the release of the summer blockbuster, but don’t want to shell out the money to rent it from a local video store or purchase it, Redbox may have the customer wait a month to rent it from them. It is not the choice of Redbox to do this, but the movie industries are protecting their own business. If they allow new releases to hit Redbox as soon as they are on the street, there will be no other option besides Redbox.

As a movie-fan, I seem to still dish out the cash to see a new movie in the theaters, but when the movie is released for stores I seem more hesitant to purchase or rent it. Only time will tell to see if Redbox will be able to take hold of the movie industries and have the upper hand. New movies that are released in theaters still seem to do really well, the summer-hit “The Hangover” was able to draw in an estimated 16.5$ million the first weekend it was released. (http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2593&p=.htm)

The public will be the ultimate test for movie studios, DVD outlets and rental services. Will people being to stray away from the movies and purchasing DVD’s to wait until they are released at a later date for a cheaper price? My guess it that Americans are very impatient and irrational with their wallets and although Redbox seems like an economically safe alternative, their still will be a market for DVD’s and tickets at the movie theater. If we are willing to spend 15$ for a movie ticket to get food served to us, then why should we care about renting a DVD for 5$ or buying one for 20$? Redbox is going to have to deal with the release issue of their titles if they want to seek any sort of competition as people will not want to wait a month to see a new release when they can spend extra bucks to see it the same day. Many have not heard of Redbox or other rental kiosks so they may want to do a better job of advertising another outlet, a cheaper outlet of receiving a movie. I believe that no-matter the circumstance, unless Redbox is able to fix their problems, there will be an outlet for movies, whether it is at the theatres or in stores.  President of Redbox, Mitch Lowe states that,  “If you make renting affordable and fun, people are going to watch a whole lot more movies than they did before.” This may be the situation, but Redbox has yet to live up to these standards and ultimately, the movie industry will win out.

Source (link): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/business/media/07redbox.html?_r=1&ref=media