The film looks like it has real potential but I sure wish she would have someone (re)design her site so it doesn't look like a 10-year old made it :-( Use of flash for the menu buttons and popups? Impossible to navigate. I couldn't find the trailer on myspace?
I'd really love to see Amber's films, but the high prices for the DVDs are very off-putting. It'd be nice if she was worked slightly less indie, like with actual distribution.
And yeah, she tried for a while to get distribution for Chance. She's not exactly a household name, unfortunately. Not yet.
Just watched the trailer. I remember this now. There was a slightly different trailer for it a while back (as far back as a year ago?). I like that Amber got Christine Estabrook to be in it. It looks like it might be a lot better Chance, which is good 'cause I didn't like much of Chance. Was cool to see James Marsters without the Spike voice for the first time and most of the performances were good, just the plot wasn't all that and I couldn't get past the look of the film. Which is odd since that sorta thing almost never bothers me and I can sit through plays and suspend disbelief no problem.
For $30 I can buy DVDs in the Criterion Collection, which are among the best in the world. Honestly, this seems about lack of distribution, coupled with a need to recoup what I believe to be is about $250,000 in costs, raised largely by selling figurines and other means of raising funds. I love Amber Benson and I'll support her work, but the only way I can read this decision (and I hope I am wrong) is that she was unable to find distributors- which I find odd, since she has a decent following in certain sectors, such as on the GLBT circuit and in the Buffy con circuit.
Everything Amber Benson does is amazing. Chance was great... Lover, Liars and Lunatics will be just as great if not better... keep the movies coming Amber... I will be there for support!
Yikes, 30 bucks...I don't know, I think she might be able to sell more at a lower price, because what I've learned in economics is that if your product isn't something the masses are going to gravitate to immediately (unlike say ipods, tickle-me-elmos, or firefly dvds) you're going to have a difficult time selling a product at a high price.
There isn't enough demand to warrant a higher price. Cut the price by even five dollars and you'll make more money, because more people will find it affordable and will give it a second look. Make it less affordabile, and people won't consider it unless your plot really, really grabs them.
And the website probably doesn't help grab people.
I didn't find the site all that annoying, but it wasn't really wonderful either. The funny thing about web costs is that it's pretty much free -- all you need to do is pay for the domain. Find a few buddies who are Photoshop whizkids, get someone who knows website building and you've got yourself a site.
As for me, it's interesting -- but I don't know if I'll buy it. It won't be at blockbuster and it won't be on netflix, so I don't know...
There isn't enough demand to warrant a higher price. Cut the price by even five dollars and you'll make more money, because more people will find it affordable and will give it a second look
That might be a generally valid proposition, but if we're talking economics, it would be important to know the price elasticity of demand of Amber's work. If we assume there's a highly inelastic demand curve for her stuff amongst her core supporters, and thereafter the demand curve for this project will be highly elasticis somewhat inelastic or even elastic, it's quite possible that it makes more sense to price it a little bit higher. That way, AB gets the ensured return from the Amberites who have to have it at any (reasonable) price - perhaps enough to break even, - even if she makes relatively fewer sales to non-fans.
In other words, lowering the price a little bit may not make much of a difference in sales at all, at least not enough to justify reaping less money from the hard-core Benson bloc . . . this is all conjecture, of course. At the least, we'd have to estimate the demand and price elasticity in order to come up with the optimal pricing point - and I know there are members here who know far more about this than I do.
All I know is, I'll buy it at $30. Heck, I'd probably buy it at $40. I like Amber.
here's the trailer on YouTube instead
[ edited by TaraLivesOn on 2006-06-13 13:42 ]
TaraLivesOn | June 13, 15:36 CET
Here's the myspace link which also has the trailer.
[ edited by moley75 on 2006-06-13 14:08 ]
moley75 | June 13, 15:57 CET
alpha5099 | June 13, 21:45 CET
gossi | June 13, 21:47 CET
And yeah, she tried for a while to get distribution for Chance. She's not exactly a household name, unfortunately. Not yet.
Just watched the trailer. I remember this now. There was a slightly different trailer for it a while back (as far back as a year ago?). I like that Amber got Christine Estabrook to be in it. It looks like it might be a lot better Chance, which is good 'cause I didn't like much of Chance. Was cool to see James Marsters without the Spike voice for the first time and most of the performances were good, just the plot wasn't all that and I couldn't get past the look of the film. Which is odd since that sorta thing almost never bothers me and I can sit through plays and suspend disbelief no problem.
Kris | June 13, 21:56 CET
moley75 | June 13, 22:11 CET
So, okay, after I buy Joss' screenwriting expo DVD, I'm getting Chance and pre-ordering this. It's about damn time I did this...
UnpluggedCrazy | June 13, 22:40 CET
I need to buy Chance too, and this movie, on DVD. Like now.
fran | June 13, 22:57 CET
Dana5140 | June 13, 23:43 CET
- Anthony
Big Damn Flan | June 14, 00:25 CET
Berry | June 14, 00:39 CET
RavenU | June 14, 00:59 CET
There isn't enough demand to warrant a higher price. Cut the price by even five dollars and you'll make more money, because more people will find it affordable and will give it a second look. Make it less affordabile, and people won't consider it unless your plot really, really grabs them.
And the website probably doesn't help grab people.
I didn't find the site all that annoying, but it wasn't really wonderful either. The funny thing about web costs is that it's pretty much free -- all you need to do is pay for the domain. Find a few buddies who are Photoshop whizkids, get someone who knows website building and you've got yourself a site.
As for me, it's interesting -- but I don't know if I'll buy it. It won't be at blockbuster and it won't be on netflix, so I don't know...
YellowBear | June 14, 01:47 CET
That might be a generally valid proposition, but if we're talking economics, it would be important to know the price elasticity of demand of Amber's work. If we assume there's a highly inelastic demand curve for her stuff amongst her core supporters, and thereafter the demand curve for this project
will be highly elasticis somewhat inelastic or even elastic, it's quite possible that it makes more sense to price it a little bit higher. That way, AB gets the ensured return from the Amberites who have to have it at any (reasonable) price - perhaps enough to break even, - even if she makes relatively fewer sales to non-fans.In other words, lowering the price a little bit may not make much of a difference in sales at all, at least not enough to justify reaping less money from the hard-core Benson bloc . . . this is all conjecture, of course. At the least, we'd have to estimate the demand and price elasticity in order to come up with the optimal pricing point - and I know there are members here who know far more about this than I do.
All I know is, I'll buy it at $30. Heck, I'd probably buy it at $40. I like Amber.
[ edited by SoddingNancyTribe on 2006-06-14 01:21 ]
SoddingNancyTribe | June 14, 02:48 CET
Simon | June 14, 02:55 CET
But seriously, one good lesson I took from grad school was that economics can be surprisingly fun.
And non-sequiturially, I went to school here in Cali with the granddaughter of the recently-passed JK Galbraith. She's lovely.
SoddingNancyTribe | June 14, 03:25 CET
holymother | June 14, 07:58 CET
rileysaplank | June 14, 12:19 CET