3D TV Sales getting failing grade-what do you think?

[digitalbabe]

Per 1 article in Twice News:

Whether you have a 3D TV or not,what are your thoughts?

That is the grade given to the rollout of 3D TV by Tom Galanis, operations VP for Sixth Avenue Electronics.

In a wide-ranging interview conducted by TWICE executive editor Greg Tarr at the NewBay Media 3DTV 2011 What's Next? Conference, held here on Nov. 18, Galanis was blunt in describing 3D's introduction to the public.

"As an industry we could have done a better job launching it. We should have had standardized glasses and we should have presented it to the consumer as a feature of a higher quality television," he said.

Galanis described 3D TV sales forecasts of 3 million to 5 million sets for 2011 a little high. He said stores with a trained sales staff, like Sixth Avenue, are better positioned to sell 3D TV due to the complicated nature of the product, which includes explaining why the person should spend more on the technology.

This includes the active matrix glasses required by many models, which Galanis pointed to as the primary stumbling block.

"Glasses, if you didn't have them it would have been a victory for 3D," Galanis said, adding the current pricing structure for the glasses is well above what the average consumer is willing to pay.

"I think $50 to $60 is what people are willing to spend and aftermarket [glasses] sales are not going well. People are only taking the bundled glasses," he said.

The industry trend for next year to go from the more expensive active shutter glasses to passive may not solve the problem. Galanis said the last thing needed is another standard, plus passive glasses do not deliver the same level of performance as their active shutter cousins.

To battle this problem the industry needs to standardize the equipment and target the marketing toward certain types of programming. He described these as spectacle types of shows.

There were a few bright points. Galanis said the average selling price of a 3D TV is around $1,700 compared with the $1,000 for a standard TV sale. Consumers also have not expressed worry over the various health issues -- like headaches and seizures -- that have surrounded the technology.

Sixth Avenue customers are also leaning toward plasma-based 3D TVs over LCD. Galanis attributed this to the plasma display's faster refresh, which delivers a better 3D experience.

Galanis said selling 3D TV should get easier as more 3D content becomes available and the growing interest in IPTV will help sales.

"Right now more people are interested in IPTV than 3D. However, if a person wants IPTV they would probably want 3D," Galanis said, adding these customers want bleeding edge technology.

Sixth Avenue is not counting on 3D TV to be a Black Friday driver since that is a price-driven event and 3D TV is still too expensive.

He did think consumers would come out during the holiday shopping period, despite the tough sales environment that is currently in place.

 

[Illiciter]

3D failing?



NO. WAY!

 

[DaMexiRican]

It makes sense with some points he made. The glasses being so expensive and varying. Compare it to movie theaters where you go and wear universal glasses, easy to see why its failing. I still really like 3D, but at this point, I'd rather pay the extra $3 to see a movie in 3D at the theaters than buy an expensive tv set and expensive glasses.

 

[jefXfree]

I hope it dies a quick death. I hate 3D... I can understand his points and even agree with them. The 3D generally looks like trash on the big screen, then you cram all that CG into a TV with 3D. ugh...

 

[Horhay]

With the right equipment it looks superb. I have a Panny 3D TV and it looks pretty amazing. If 3D done right it looks sweet, he complaints are valid though there's no arguing with that. The glasses are pretty expensive there's no doubt about that, but that's the price you have to pay to be an early adopter isn't? or am I lying? How many of you payed below $300 for a BD player when released? It's how the market works.

Now knowing ahead of time that you need glasses for these TVs and you still buy a set and then complain about it then who's the one with the problem? I paid 160 for one pair and thought that was steep, but my panny came with one pair so no biggie. I knew ahead of time what the price was to be an early adopter. However, in times like these people will look at their wallets first before plunging and if they don't lower the price of the accessories for the TVs the sales won't come.

 

[digitalbabe]

I think just like with BD players and BD media, prices need to come down significantly for the masses (who ultimately push sales ahead enough to deem a product a success), to adopt the technology. Prior to BD players coming down to the $300 or below level, the majority of people said the same thing, but afterwar the "wait and see" format war ended, and prices dropped on media and players, adoption rapidly increased.

In the case of 3D, with a major release slate, of not just kids films announced for years to come, I think it could be a technology of choice, if the equipment was standardized and sold eventually at a price range of the HDTV's now. Of course how quick they can do that, without being outpaced by 3D TV's that require no glasses, remains to be seen. Every other minute there is new technology announced and we constantly make choices as to which to purchase (just look at the plethora of streaming, and content media gizmos getting released, cell phones, operating systems, PC Applications, etc etc).

3D is, in a sense, in its infancy the same way that other technology is when first released. As we all know, for those folks that actively choose to adopt it first doesn't matter what it costs, and there are still plenty of people that purchase upgraded tech (high end receivers, vs "mainstream", latest model, vs end of life HDTV's, etc, vs the "average" available tech, every day). Though early adopters by default pay more for the equipment than someone that jumps on the bandwagon later, or never, they obviously don't enjoy it any less (and lord knows there are enough people discussing all 3D models, movies, all over the net). I adopted both hi-def formats years ago, and though I was annoyed and caught in the cross hairs of the infamous "format wars", I was watching hi-def in "Red" or "Blue" while everyone was acting like childish fanboy/fangirl, and I didn't care-I cared more for seeing ficks in hi-def and it totally worth it for me, when I bought into both in 2007.

The manufacturers themselves admitted that 3D marketing studdered out of the gate (reminds me of BD 1.0 and 2.0) so customers cannot be blamed for "sitting on the fence", especially given the fact that many "just" got into BD, and don't care to once again upgrade everything. I've been a part of several focus groups myself, and the sentiment is that most people don't want to wear glasses, or discard all of their newly acquired equipment "again". I've long thought that if a company like Logitech released a good pair of glasses as an accessory, that may start to change, but the TV manufacturers of course want to launch with "propietary" products, first.

I think many people also don't see 3D as a "needed" upgrade or "enough" of an upgrade, like hi-def was, to regular dvd, for instance(and still millions of people claim not to "see the difference", so it may remain a niche market.

I personally enjoy 3D (when done correctly) in the theater very much (i.e. Avatar). And based on several interviews with leading directors of films other than the run of the mill action flick, there are no plans to shelve 3D (not to mentioned it's breathed life into sagging ticket sales, so the major push by studios will continue). I'll stay tuned, and based on the demo of the Panasonic I saw several months ago, I think there is room for a 3D market. But as usual, price and, hence, the masses will dictate if it sinks or swims.

 

[jefXfree]

I think many people also don't see 3D as a "needed" upgrade or "enough" of an upgrade, like hi-def was, to regular dvd, for instance(and still millions of people claim not to "see the difference", so it may remain a niche market.

I personally enjoy 3D (when done correctly) in the theater very much (i.e. Avatar). And based on several interviews with leading directors of films other than the run of the mill action flick, there are no plans to shelve 3D (not to mentioned it's breathed life into sagging ticket sales, so the major push by studios will continue). I'll stay tuned, and based on the demo of the Panasonic I saw several months ago, I think there is room for a 3D market. But as usual, price and, hence, the masses will dictate if it sinks or swims.

I have one agreement and one disagreement here...

I completely agree that High-Def is something worth buying. Going from 420 to 1080 is INSANE as far as video quality goes. I've heard the "I can't see the difference" complaint from my dad... who was using an upscaler sold to him as "just as good."

And I think that's the problem with HD. Companies that sell the product have ignorant or deceitful sells reps that are just trying to make a buck and it ultimately hurts the tech because people think that they wasted their money.

I've also seen people think they can buy a BD player and use an SD tv... People don't realize the investment they have to make, so I think a lot of it is ignorance on the buyers part too...

Now for the disagreement.

Not to say your wrong, but those numbers are trash. Not counting Avatar, because it did numbers as well, if you take a 3D movie and compare it to a non-3D movie the 3D movies aren't selling more tickets. They're making more money because they cost more.

They aren't breathing life into ticket sales, they're ripping the audience out of $3 extra per-ticket, thus making it appear that ticket sales are doing fine.

In fact attendance is down from last year, but rising cost of movie tickets in addition to the extra cost of 3D makes it appear that they're selling more tickets, when in fact they're not.

---

But alas, i'm going to be outnumbered by the studio execs that would lie to you and tell you that Avatar is the best selling movie of all time... When, in fact, it's about 14 on the list of the best selling movies of all time if you level the playing field.

---

Anyway, those are my off topic rants. haha...

 

[Horhay]

I agree with you on the fact that reps are still trying to sell items without adequately informing them of all things associated with the technology. Now as far as the movies go, that's why movie theaters give you a choice of what you want to see, 3D or non-3D, if people's choice is to go into 3D that generates more money for the movie studio then that gives the indication to the studio thats the path to follow. It's a business just like any other. You follow a trend that's popular and then switch when the market shifts to a new trend.

 

[digitalbabe]

Hey Jex, thanks for your comment. I am fine with disagreement and off topic rants,anytime

Yes, I was actually not referring to more ticket sales, but the increase in revenue, because the average ticket is $3-6 more expensive. "Breathe life into" here referred to the studios' desperate attempt to lift theater revenue (slouching because of an improved HT in home theater experience, patron response to noise in theaters, annoyance at high concession and ticket prices etc etc).

Many box office totals are not even adjusted based on # of screens released, economy, inflation, budgets,etc etc, (though as we know there are sites that do so). I've been in media distribution (on the home media side) for 15+ years myself, and there always is some bolstering of statistics, depending on who is reporting them, of course.

In addition to boosting revenue because of the higher ticket prices, 3D has also provided an increased "novelty" needed by studios to try to get folks back into the theater and provide some kind of additional interaction and immersion. Social Media sites bolster that excitement and hysteria like never before and allow films to seem more popular than they actually are, but consumers are also not dumb. I didn't see Clash of The Titans 3D, but after that backlash, I was not surprised to see Warner elect to NOT rush Harry Potter & DH into 3D conversion. I think the net and our ability to review, talk back, comment publicly, etc has had some effect on how much wool can get pulled over our eyes. Though we've still seen nonsense released by studios (not all commodities/brands/characters studios own can be Oscar Winners or Blockbusters,obviously), there still seems to be an increased power consumers are experiencing because of our ability to find information for free,and faster(on the net, etc), than ever before. While we can't directly influence their decision to release, it's much easier to let them know that they've struck coal instead of gold.

I don't want to get the thread all of topic, especially as we started at 3D, LOL, but I think at the heart of successful and truly relevant films (regardless of rating or audience) is still the story and entertainment value. Hopefully the studios find their originality again (though with all of the boring reboots it seems not to be the case), because 3D alone, obviously will not turn a turd to gold One in a while that gold comes along, and when I find it, I think there's still hope

DB

 

[jefXfree]

I agree with you on the fact that reps are still trying to sell items without adequately informing them of all things associated with the technology. Now as far as the movies go, that's why movie theaters give you a choice of what you want to see, 3D or non-3D, if people's choice is to go into 3D that generates more money for the movie studio then that gives the indication to the studio thats the path to follow. It's a business just like any other. You follow a trend that's popular and then switch when the market shifts to a new trend.

But some theaters don't give the choice of a Non-3D film. For example Resident Evil 3D didn't play in 2D format anywhere near me, and I live in San Diego... So it's not always a choice, but I suppose if people like 3D that's fine for them. Whatever makes people happy is all that matters ultimately.

Hey Jex, thanks for your comment. I am fine with disagreement and off topic rants,anytime

Yes, I was actually not referring to more ticket sales, but the increase in revenue, because the average ticket is $3-6 more expensive. "Breathe life into" here referred to the studios' desperate attempt to lift theater revenue (slouching because of an improved HT in home theater experience, patron response to noise in theaters, annoyance at high concession and ticket prices etc etc).

Many box office totals are not even adjusted based on # of screens released, economy, inflation, budgets,etc etc, (though as we know there are sites that do so). I've been in media distribution (on the home media side) for 15+ years myself, and there always is some bolstering of statistics, depending on who is reporting them, of course.

In addition to boosting revenue because of the higher ticket prices, 3D has also provided an increased "novelty" needed by studios to try to get folks back into the theater and provide some kind of additional interaction and immersion. Social Media sites bolster that excitement and hysteria like never before and allow films to seem more popular than they actually are, but consumers are also not dumb. I didn't see Clash of The Titans 3D, but after that backlash, I was not surprised to see Warner elect to NOT rush Harry Potter & DH into 3D conversion. I think the net and our ability to review, talk back, comment publicly, etc has had some effect on how much wool can get pulled over our eyes. Though we've still seen nonsense released by studios (not all commodities/brands/characters studios own can be Oscar Winners or Blockbusters,obviously), there still seems to be an increased power consumers are experiencing because of our ability to find information for free,and faster(on the net, etc), than ever before. While we can't directly influence their decision to release, it's much easier to let them know that they've struck coal instead of gold.

I don't want to get the thread all of topic, especially as we started at 3D, LOL, but I think at the heart of successful and truly relevant films (regardless of rating or audience) is still the story and entertainment value. Hopefully the studios find their originality again (though with all of the boring reboots it seems not to be the case), because 3D alone, obviously will not turn a turd to gold One in a while that gold comes along, and when I find it, I think there's still hope

DB

Yeah. IDK what Hollywood is going to do. As a filmmaker that's struggling to get real, new, ideas into the world it's frustrating to see all these things being remade and reinvented. They're doing good work sometimes... But more often than not they're just doing it to save money and it often turns to trash.

But, in an attempt to get back on topic, 3D isn't for me. And, unfortunately, I don't see 3D sticking around in the home market either. There are so many people that don't have HDTVs and they certainly can't afford a new 3DTV... Then take into account the failing economy and huge mark-up on the cost of 3D I just don't see it going anywhere. It'll be like OLED. There will be a lot of people into it, but it wont go anywhere.

 

[Sixteenvolt420]

I was planning on getting a 3d tv out of my tax refund, until i saw Toshiba and Sony were working on 3d tv's that you wouldn't need the glasses. Now i'm just waiting for those instead.

 

[the_ps_hero]

i'm waiting for the panasonic Kuro like like black's with being 3D compatible,when ever that come's to market.

 

[BurntPopcorn]

ok,
here is my .02 cents on this topic

i bought into the 3D, and i am happy i did, but what kind of happened we got a very short window about 3D TV's being released in the first place. Sooooo, people were out buying new HDTV's that did not have a clue about 3D TV's coming out for sale. And those are the people who are pretty pissed off and i cant blame them one bit.
I am also likening this to a 2 edge sword. Here is one way to look at it. What if all the retailers knew that 3D was coming, but kept it quiet so they could unload their stock on hand thinking that a lot of people would hold off buying a new TV until the 3D TV's actually were on the store shelves for sale? Therefore creating a huge backstock of TV's they dont want cluttering up their warehouses. In otherwords, its all about the dollar, and they didnt care about us the consumer.
ok, now listen up, this is my .02 cents again. I have a 55" 3D tv, i cant remember if it is VIZIO or LG or both are coming out with a 75" 3D TV. I personally think the 55" is kinda small, and i prolly will pick myself up that 75" lol.
well, thats my take on this lol