PerryD

I don't go to Blockbuster for one reason: price. They raised their rental fees to $4.50 for a movie, and $8 for a videogame. It might be higher now since I haven't been in a store in several months. Considering the movies only cost them probably $15 or less wholesale and games around probably $35, I see no reason for such high prices for rentals, especially since their costs are much cheaper than back in the VHS days ($100) and game cartidges ($60), yet rentals back then were around $2 to $3. I have to think that if they dropped their prices back to $2 that overall profits would skyrocket.

slowcloud

You'll have to excuse me if I wish to leave at economics isn't just about prices. I was just saying it's just not that simple, and If I have to write more it will be either for a class paper or an article. It's just you can't narrow it to competition in price.

X

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

I now understand that having less choice will be better for me in the end and anxiously await receiving the benefits of Blockbuster's demise. I just hope every other competitor will drop out soon so that I can achieve DVD rental nirvana.

BigDan

One thing about the competition driving down prices argument is that the loss of the dominant player in the market might open the door for more competitors to enter who would not have if the dominant player were still around.

There is a possibility that people who wouldn't be interested in taking on Blockbuster being willing to open in a market without Blockbuster.

My mother lives in a two-college town without a Blockbuster, and the video rental options there suck. So, I don't know that this romanticized idea that some people put forth that as soon as Blockbuster crashes, someone better will fill the void is necessarily going to come true in a lot of places.