[mfrommil]

Let's assume redbox buys a single bluray for $20, and there's rental demand for each movie for 1 year. If variable cost = $1/physical disc per month, then redbox profit per disc would be something like:

P = (# of rentals * $1) - $32

where $32 = the $20 disc cost + monthly var cost

If redbox rents the movie once per week, their per disc annual profit is $20

But, if redbox can now sell the virtual download code for $8 online (essentially $0 variable cost for holding digital inventory), and digital sales has little impact on physical rentals, then the equation would be:

P = (# of rentals * $1) - $32 + $8

With annual profit per disc in the 1x/wk rental case now $28, or a 40% gross margin increase. All #s are just napkin math/assumptions, but it's easy to see the benefit here for redbox.

[jstanley]

You didn't need to go through all that maths.

The easy answer is "they get more money if they sell the code as well as the disc, instead of just selling the disc".

[cheeze]

All I could think when I read that response was "thanks, but you're not Tyler Durden"

[jermaustin1]

The license on the Bluray and DVDs that RedBox buys (Rental Licensed) typically require paying out royalties from the rental fee. As with all royalties, these are negotiated, but I have heard from people who ran their own DVD rental store fronts (when that was still a thing) that they could be as much as $5 per rental on.

Also the disk is usually a LOT more expensive (up to $100 for a new blockbuster release). DVD store fronts were already so low margin, it didn't take much disruption before they started to go under.

[RobAley]

As the story points out, Redbox don't have an agreement with Disney, and so buy their discs at retail price. It does mean they don't get the new blockbusters (which is why they have deals with other studios), but the costs above are reflective of their costs in this case. If they had a contract with Disney, they would get the block busters (at a higher price), but wouldn't get the digital codes (which are the subject of this case).

[qilo]

I was under impression that those direct deals with distributors are better deals for RedBox than buying discs in retail. Because if they don't get a good deal, they can always buy discs in retail for $20-ish something, and have no restrictions on renting or resaling them, and with no royalties or fees, because of "first sale doctrine".

[RobAley]

Yes, but then they only get them once they are on general retail sale, and so don't get the newest (to-rental) movies. They pay more when they have an agreement, but the theory is they make it back from increased rentals (because people can't just buy themselves a copy at the supermarket, and enough people are lazy enough to spend a bit more so they don't have to return it).

[deelowe]

So, the answer to the question is yes?

[dtparr]

Yes, the answer is yes. In fact, Disney movies, like many others in the US, often come in a multi-pack with a Blu-ray, DVD, and a digital code. They can sell the digital code while renting out both the Blu-ray and DVD. Then after a while, sell off those used discs as well once demand goes down (they don't usually sell them all, but they obviously want to reduce inventory in line with a lower demand over time)