They already have the enormous cost of production sunk though. I understand not paying for marketing, but projected profit goes from “negative” to “massively negative” if they don’t at least license it out to streaming.
An anecdote: AT&T was having a fire sale on the base iPhone 16 Plus, like so cheap that it must have been a loss. It didn’t make any sense to me, but an employee speculated that, since it was their worst selling model of the lineup, they were clearing the inventory and writing it off as a loss to compensate for some other transactions.
This is classic sunk cost fallacy logic. It’s because they had the enormous cost of production sunk, they resisted the fallacy and sinking more money into it since the returns were not favorable.
But this doesn’t apply. This product has like zero per unit cost, and (per reports) it’s all but finished.
Hence the bare minimum cost for getting it out the door is basically nothing. With the state they have, they could use a tiny amount of money to make much, much more, no matter how poorly the movie performs.
The only reasonable explanation is some external benefit to sinking it instead of releasing, like a tax write off.
They already have the enormous cost of production sunk though. I understand not paying for marketing, but projected profit goes from “negative” to “massively negative” if they don’t at least license it out to streaming.
It’s probably something tax related, but still.
It’s literally all tax-related. Every single thing, not just Hollywood and movies.
If something doesn’t make sense to us, it probably makes sense to the people who actually do the math on a regular basis.
Yeah.
An anecdote: AT&T was having a fire sale on the base iPhone 16 Plus, like so cheap that it must have been a loss. It didn’t make any sense to me, but an employee speculated that, since it was their worst selling model of the lineup, they were clearing the inventory and writing it off as a loss to compensate for some other transactions.
Warehouse and store shelf space that could be used for better selling phones is the opportunity cost they’re weighing that against.
This is classic sunk cost fallacy logic. It’s because they had the enormous cost of production sunk, they resisted the fallacy and sinking more money into it since the returns were not favorable.
But this doesn’t apply. This product has like zero per unit cost, and (per reports) it’s all but finished.
Hence the bare minimum cost for getting it out the door is basically nothing. With the state they have, they could use a tiny amount of money to make much, much more, no matter how poorly the movie performs.
The only reasonable explanation is some external benefit to sinking it instead of releasing, like a tax write off.