October, 2002

I love movies. I really love to see them in the theater, but I also like to watch them at home. I don't limit myself to the most 100 popular movies of all time - I like them from all periods about all subjects. I'm sure there are other people like me. So why does Blockbuster insist on eliminating all the older stock it can even while half of the shelves in the store sit empty?

I can understand them not buying older films because of limited demand, but these idiots cull good movies from the shelves while they are still good draws. For example, the other day I tried to rent "Maverick". This is not an ancient film. It even has current big name stars in it. I can probably even find a few 100 thousand people who think it's a good movie. They had it in the store for sale, but not for rental. It was sitting in an aisle that had at least 30 feet of empty shelf space. What corporate bean counter came up with that decision?

It would not be so bad if there were other video stores in our town, but Blockbuster is the only game. On a side note, I find this incredible. Great Neck, NY has a large and hugely affluent population with a voracious appetite for all consumer delights, and it can't support a single video store beside blockbuster? Shame on us.

So here is my idea. Blockbuster corporate, are you listening? Don't make keep/no-keep decisions based solely on the aggregated rental figures. Let local stores keep movies until their shelf space runs out, then provide a cull list for them. You've paid for the shelf space anyway, and you might rent some things a few dozen more times.