Comments on: Sundance’s YouTube Stream? Not So Much…

By: David Rey

David Rey — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:53:54 +0000

The reason you tube is getting such poor results, because it has established itself as a free site, everybody is looking for free videos combine with limited attention spans and no recognizable names you get low sales/rentals.

By: david cooper

david cooper — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:25:24 +0000

Ummm, let’s see – $3.99 per film sounds like a lot. I already pay for lots of films with my cable bill. Why not try 99 cents a film? Or two for a buck specials? Think fast food.

By: Unanonymous

Unanonymous — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:03:42 +0000

I think the results are pretty scewed As compared to a regular studio film that has been out on DVD and netflix etc.

By: Wendell Craig

Wendell Craig — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:09:14 +0000

Perhaps it is a mistake, but it seems to me collecting over ten grand in a day of rentals in complete secrecy – and their cost is, let’ see, about 76 cents for server time and about the same for each of several score actors – looks more like a stroke of genius! If it were a public company, I’d buy a little chunk!

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:38:29 +0000

I would call that a marketing mistake. I never heard of it until now.