|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: idiot moviegoers
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-20-2005 03:58 AM
I am with Jhawk on this one. It is not the customer's responsibility to have to play usher, manager, theatre police or the attentive projectionist. That's management's job. The reason Monte's patron came out after the fact and was irate on top of it was because there WAS NO SERVICE in the theatre. He rightfully felt that he shouldn't have to come out to tell management something the theatre should be on top of to begin with.
It used to be that even in neighborhood theatres there was an usher or "matron" who stayed in the theatre for the entire show. No one needed to become the room "whistle blower" on rowdy behavior with all the inconvenience that entails, as John pointed out....leaving your seat, disrupting everyone in your isle, FINDING someone in charge (sometimes an impossible feat) and then hoping that the manager or whoever will actually throw the asshole out rather give him a "warning" only to have him then know who the snitch was and abuse that person for the rest of the show). No one had to find some to tell that the picture or sound was bad -- that was the job of the projectionist to see that stuff as soon as it occurred and correct it usually before a patron ever feels the need to "get up to find someone." Customer Service used to mean that management did all that -- no one had to tell them.
Customer Service meant that there was actually someone in the booth that knew how to deal with simple things like an out-of-frame image or a sound roller that was not closed, because that someone was monitoring the screen and listening to the sound.
And there is proof that when film presentation and theatre operation was indeed a craft and not an assembly line operation in the days of single screens -- it's simple....the proof is that for my entire childhood, which consisted of lots of movie going in the late 50s and 60s, I never heard anyone, neither youth nor oldth, say they hated going to the movies. Never. And as much as Joe R and Brad M will tell you that the idea that in those days movie going had an aura of magic around it is so much crap and megaplexes give better presentation than the single screen theatres of the Golden Age of Movies Palaces ever did and that there is nothing magic about it, the fact remains that today in the era of the godzillaplex, no one has to look very far to find lots and LOTS of people who have nothing good to say about the present day movie-going experience, regardless of how good a show might be run technically.
We can probably go on for days comparing megaplex operation and how it can give better picture and sound than you could ever get in the single screen theatres of the 50s and 60s, but obviously there are other factors that come into play and which seem to have gone missing from the cinema factories of today. Yeah, I know the anti-romantics will poo-poo the idea that the movies back then were magic, but you know what? they sure aren't magic today, no matter how good the picture and sound. Evidently as simple a thing as having an usher and a matron standing in the back of the theatre to quickly deal with disruptive behavior as they did in single screen operation means a lot more to patrons than getting a perfectly balanced, 1/6th octave voiced B-chain. We all know it's a trade-off. Management wants to run it as cheaply as possible with as few people as possible. If that means patrons have to police their own room, so be it. If they have to wait 20 minutes before someone can find a human being who knows what you are talking about when someone says the picture is out-of-frame, so be it. But not having those things may very well mean patrons are going to find moviegoing such a chore and magic-less, well, so be it. But let's not blame it on the moviegoer if he is less than pleased that his chair was being kicked for 2 & a half hours by some acne-dotted ass-wipe who is trying to impress his equally brain-damaged "possie." Let's not fault these moviegoers because they don't find this experience "magic" any longer. And it can all be put at the feet of management. Perhaps theatre owners will may wake up sooner rather than later to the fact that those once coveted "idot" moviegoers are going to spend a couple of thousand dollars on their home "theatre" where they are sure to create their own movie magic perfectly suited to their likes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Brown
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 105
From: Fairport, NY, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 02-20-2005 01:09 PM
Frank,
I semi-agree with you about booth issues at least. I've always made it a practice of walking up and down the booth when I have nothing else to do, just checking sound and picture quality, checking rollers, etc. Problem is, at least in my case, that I can't be up the for the duration of every show. During breaks I have to go down and watch the floor while the floor mgrs do cash pulls. We obviously do our best to make sure that little issues like misframes and such are corrected ASAP, but that's not always possible.
As far as other things going on during the theatre, there is no way to keep tabs on what's going on in each auditorium at every moment. Working at a 13 screen theatre, there is simply no feasable way to do this, as nice as it would be. We have at least 2 checks done per show, and obviously if someone comes out to complain we go in and check it out. But having someone to sit and monitor each auditorium is impossible to pull off. This is why in a lot of instances, we have to rely on the customer to make us aware of these situations so we can quickly correct them. There is just simply no other way most of the time. If there were, it would be great; if a customer having to come out during the show and missing some of the show can be avoided, great. But sometimes, that is what is necessary to correct some issues that may arise.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-20-2005 02:46 PM
Chris, you are right. As much as I might lament the fact that things aren't the way they used to be, I am a realist. I know that management will never hire enough ushers to cover every theatre in a plex. It's not because they can't -- they are allowed to deduct the house "nut" right off the top of the gross ticket sales. They could just as easily include an usher for each theatre as part of that house nut, but why would they do that when they can pocket that money instead? It's all about cutting corners as so many business do (not only exhibitors) in order to make more profit.
We all know how much we hate hearing that recording --"All of our service representatives are busy at the moment, but your call is important to us....." And I yell back, "Yah, but not important enough for you to hire a couple of more freakin service representatives, is it?" So theatre owners are not the only ones who have adopted the how-much-can-I-get-away-with-and-still-not-get-sucker-punched-by-my-next-customer business plan. But theatre owners may find that kind of approach may hurt them in the long run a lot more than it hurts other types of service oriented businesses.
Years ago when a theatre chain ran 300 single screen theatres, they had an usher and a matron in each one, not to mention a projectionist for EACH screen. They deducted a house nut for each of those single screens and that included the salary for those ushers, matrons and projectionists. There is no reason why still can't do at least some of that. The thing is, the very nature of the multiplex and the reason for its existence as opposed to the single screen is that it allows consolidation and elimination (there's a joke in there, but it's too easy). The real question is, how much can you consolidate before good economics turns into bad custom service and lower and lower customer satisfaction? How much can be cut before the whole thing begins to loose money and implode on itself?
Problem is, there is a lag-time before you are able to see a dip in the profit line; customer dissatisfaction takes time to kick in and a long time to recover once it becomes obvious. The real crisis will be if by the time the profit level drops significantly enough for some exhibitor corporate bean-counter to say, "gee, our customer satisfaction is so low that we are loosing money," those customers may be forever lost. Trying to change their entire corporate culture (if that is even possible) and method of operation at that point in time may be way too late for any recovery.
In the past, the entire industry saw a threat that stole patrons from theatre seats -- it was TV. They reacted to it by creating a bigger and better movie-going experience. Problem today with the multiplex is that what's driving patrons away is the theatre experience itself -- and IMHO, the industry is making no concerted, substantive effort to recapture those people who now openly say they "hate going to the movies" -- read: they "hate going to movie theatres, unless anyone actually thinks D-Cinema is anything that will recapture those people.
Brad keeps saying the patrons don't care what the theatre looks like as long as the picture and sound are perfect. And I say, no, they want more than that. It's like saying people won't care how unpleasant a restaurant atmosphere is or how bad its service as long as the food is perfect....that somehow no one will notice that there are no table cloths or that the floor is not clean or that the waiter serve them and is never seen again. It's the WHOLE experience that people go out for, not just one aspect of it.
Whereas before the ENTIRE industry circled the wagons to stop the hemmorage to TV; the studios developed 3-D, Cinerama, Todd-AO, CinemaScope, stereophonic sound, etc. A real problem today is that the studios don't seem to give a hoot about what happens in the theatres because they recoup their investment from markets other than theatre exhibition; they can sell their product in what used to be called the "ancillary" markets, except today those markets account for more profit than theatrical sales, and it looks like those two lines on the graph are going to continue to diverge. And with that the studios will worry less and less about the exhibitor, who doesn't even seem to notice that it's his very own business practices which may eventually make him irrelevant.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Spaeth
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1129
From: Marietta, GA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-20-2005 07:43 PM
The problem with the "house nut" is that it simply is not a realistic way of figuring expenses. In my 5 years in the theatre ... we've only paid the "magic " 90-10 ONCE (Ray - opening weekend).
The film companies set your minimum film rental as the GREATER of 90% AFTER house allowance or 70%.
If I have $3,000 in house allowance ... I have to gross over $12,000 for the week to make my house nut.
$12,000-$3,000=$9,000*.9=$8,100
$12,000*.7=$8,400.
So, even at $12,000 ... I'm paying the 70% MINIMUM.
If every film that was relases grossed $12,000 or more ... I'd be one happy camper ... and scheduling an usher for every auditorium would not be a problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Balko
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 136
From: Redwood Falls, Minnesota, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 02-20-2005 09:19 PM
While there are pertinent points made here, my original post said that I had done no less than 9 auditorium checks. When we do an auditorium check, we take a seat and "watch" the movie for at least 5 minutes each time. Simple math says that's 45 minutes spent in each auditorium. Most of the time, that's damn near half the length of the movie. Also, note that the complaint was giggling and whispering. Some people like to find something (a lot of times anything) to complain about. Now in a 300 seat auditorium that has 55 people in it, if WHISPERING is that much of a distraction, simply move to another seat.(BTW, the offending teenagers were sitting in the right rear corner, NOT near the best seats by a long shot and these ladies were sitting immediately in front of them.) The way I see it, for an usher to ferrite out a whisperer is going to be a bigger distraction than the whispering. I've never had a complaint because of a flawed presentation, damaged print, equipment malfunction, or unkind treatment. I've never cancelled a scheduled show for any reason. I take great offense to the insinuation that I provide poor customer service because I failed to remove and prosecute these fiends known as the 13 year old whisperers. I'm sure that even back in the glorious "good old days" the usher or matron couldn't catch everything that went on in those auditoriums and someone would still complain.
Now, is saying that a patron shouldn't have to complain at all kind of like saying to the doctor, "I'm paying you, so you tell me where I hurt."?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-21-2005 11:39 AM
quote: Scott Balko
I take great offense to the insinuation that I provide poor customer service because I failed to remove and prosecute these fiends known as the 13 year old whisperers. I'm sure that even back in the glorious "good old days" the usher or matron couldn't catch everything that went on in those auditoriums and someone would still complain.
Scott, I was only speaking in generalities pointing out that the move from single screen operation to multiple screen cinemas encouraged some down-sizing that in many places one might make the observation that it has gone beyond what is economical to what is detrimental to good customer service. It is not inherent that this be the case, but unfortunately in my experience it is what does happen more often than not. I was not saying that you provide poor customer service.
I once needed to complain about a sound that was obviously being played on a soundhead that was misthreaded -- this in a "flag-ship" theatre of a major chain in NYC for a major re-release engagement of 2001. When it finally became clear that no one was going to fix it, I got up to find some one....anyone to deal with it. I literally walked all over the theatre....lobby, box office, and could not find not a single solitary human being anywhere. It was as if aliens had come down while the patrons were watching the film and had sucked up the theatre personnel. Granted, it was the last show of the night, nevertheless, I still say this is a good example of understaffing to the extreme. And lots of chains do it.
quote: Brad Miller
Frank you seem to have a real problem interpreting my posts.
Brad, didn't you once say that people don't come to the theatre to see curtains and room design but to see the film and the quality of the image and sound? You have on occasion made it known that you are not a fan of large single screen theatres and that your presentation is better than any single screen would have been in the era of the movie palaces (given the sound problems and image keystoning in most of those older, large theatres, I don't disagree).
If I am misinterpreting that, then I apologize. All I am saying is that I do believe that ambiance is part of the entire package and I would go even further in that factors other than presentation can significantly impact the experience negatively, no matter how good presentation values might be. Proof of that is that people routinely pay gobs and gobs of extra money for ambiance and amenities. And as I pointed out, even more proof that amenities (we have been calling it customer service) are held in very high regard by the public is that fact that no matter how good the image on the screen and no matter how good the sound, it doesn't compensate for poor service; patrons don't overlook lack of customer service because you can present picture and sound that might rival what was capable of in movie theatres of the 50s and 60s. They still hate going to the theatres today and they didn't back then.
Perhaps we both draw different conclusions from that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 02-21-2005 01:18 PM
Frank, both have their pros and cons. With the state of the average multiplex these days, one is not necessarily better than another. *Most* old single screen theaters are not all that great in terms of presentation, but I say most because there are certainly exceptions. Also, *most* multiplexes pretty much suck too. Given two perfectly average middle-of-the-road theaters, one a single screen with average upkeep, projection and sound vs the typical multiplex with average upkeep, projection and sound, that leaves the customer pretty much deciding on whether they want the ambience and atmosphere of the single screen (but almost always a small picture with echoey sound) vs. a commonly better film presentation in terms of picture size and updated sound, but a wholly lackluster lobby and ambience experience. Fact of the matter seems to be that most people would choose the latter. People vote with their wallets. That's why a theater like the Uptown did phenomenal business (single screen with HUGE screen and apparently flawless projection in the past), but a smaller typical older single screen may be scraping the floor to try and stay alive.
It all just depends. To really have the discussion, we would have to debate it on two specific theaters that both of us had patronized. In some cases I would choose the single, in others I would choose the multiplex. It just depends.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jason Black
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1723
From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-21-2005 08:34 PM
I'm manage a 16 plex with 2 floor employees daily. One in the box office, one in concession, an assistant manager as doorman, and one person in the booth. Some days I splurge and add an actual doorman. On these days, the ast. mgr. covers the door while the doorman picks up the theatres.
I'll have that 6% payroll, just you watch. When there are only 25 people here and I'm selling tickets, tearing them, fixing the popcorn AND running the shows, of course... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's no wonder good, competent managers are leaving the chains for smaller indies, or just leaving altogether... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote: Don Cross
I always like the ten and eleven theater megaplexes that WRONGLY believe that they can operate the place with only three staff people- including management! Wonder what happens if someone calls off from work (or even a no-show), or has to leave work early. I guess that the management and/or ownership doesn't happen to have any type of plan of what to do if anything out of the ordinary happens.
There has to be a better way than to operate with the minimum of skeleton crews.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic