my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » What do you do about an erroneous checker report? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: What do you do about an erroneous checker report? Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 07-02-2012 02:02 PM                        Mike in all the years I have done this I have never had a report as far off as yours. I have had checkers turn in a few head different (when it is open we fax our copy of the report in where the checker agreed with us). When it is blind and one or two off I argue it may have been an employee pass that failed to post or just pay the difference with a note that I don't believe the report. The amount they claim you are off so great it sound like a vendetta. So who did you piss off?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-04-2012 06:36 AM                     So, we seem to be in a situation where each side claims a different figure, and neither side can prove that its figure is correct. Wouldn't it be better if the checker filled in their figures on a duplicate or triplicate form, and before leaving the building presented it to the duty manager. If the manager agrees with the figures he/she signs off the form and both sides keep a copy. If the manager chalanges the figures then a check is made in the presence of the checker and the manager as the audience leaves the auditorium?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2012 01:40 AM                        That would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it? Still no word back from the studio on their "confirmation" from their checker.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2012 08:12 AM                     quote: Stephen Furley So, we seem to be in a situation where each side claims a different figure, and neither side can prove that its figure is correct. The checker mathematically estimated the number of people in the theater and he used poor methodology. Although you can't prove that the box office report is 100% right, we can easily prove the checker's report is wrong. Given a choice between the two, a reasonable person would choose the box report over the checker. The checker's report was taken from a vantage point in the balcony where it is impossible to see all the seats. He did it in a mostly-full auditorium where people were moving around at random. Unless he stood at the auditorium door with clicker in-hand, counting everybody who walked in, there's no guarantee he didn't count some people twice or even three times. He used statistics to guess the number of people in the hall when he was supposed to do an actual head count. Finally, even if he did the math correctly, there would be so much margin for error in his results that his own numbers could predict that there were more people than seats in the room. If that was true, there would be people standing in the aisles and hanging from the rafters. If that was the case, I wouldn't have sent the report to the distributor. I would have sent it to the fire marshal! In this case, I don't think we need to prove that anybody's report is correct, be it the checker's report or the house's box office numbers. I think that we only need to prove that one of the two reports is clearly not correct. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the other report must be assumed to be correct. It's pretty clear that the checker's report is not correct. Since Mike's reputation has never, ever been called into question in more than thirty years, in the absence of any information to the contrary, we are allowed to assume that his numbers are correct.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-05-2012 10:32 AM                        I would print out this column in full and send to your offending film company. Louis  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-05-2012 10:59 AM                        I'm just surprised that the film company would stake their side of this argument on the personal credibility of a low-paid, contracted person who has presented his/her report with no way to validate the facts. In your case, if the studios actually believe the checker, there's a bigger problem. If you really had that many more people in your theatre, they could suggest that something fishy was going on at your boxoffice and the RTS paperwork you sent could actually be an indication that someone was selling fewer tickets than made it into your auditorium. That could be a bigger problem for you than the argument over the actual numbers. You haven't said, but if you have a separate person tear the tickets than the one who sold them, you would have a much stronger position than the checker. I'd think the argument that two people were in collusion would be a stretch, even for the studio.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2012 03:55 PM                        I don't know if it's a case of them "believing the checker" or if they just automatically send a bill when the counts don't agree. Like I said, this has never happened so I'm in uncharted water here. I'm surprised they didn't at least give me a phone call or an email first saying they had this outrageous overage. Instead I just got the report, and bill, in one email with no chance (apparently) to speak our side of the story. I looked at our per-caps. That night, as originally reported, is pretty consistent with any other night (there are some kids movies and such where the concession is way high, or "adult-type" movies where it's way low, but for this genre of movie it's right in there). Anyway, I'm still waiting for them to get "more information" from the checker. I've been advised by our booker not to pay, and I also notified their cashier that we were challenging the report so with any luck, our credit won't be ruined.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 07-05-2012 04:10 PM                        It is ridiculous really you have been in the business forever and they have never had a problem. Was it a blind check? If so is your state even one of those that will allow such a thing. I would be hopping mad at them over it! Anyway man I feel for you and hope it resolves the right way.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-05-2012 04:50 PM                        It's up to the party making the allegation/accusation to provide proof. Otherwise it doesn't hold water.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 07-05-2012 06:16 PM                        There can be no proof on a blind check with a single checker it is he said she said then. A film company trusting that is crazy to the max. Especially if they get a bonus for catching someone. I really think this deal suck big time.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-06-2012 09:36 PM                        And don't book anything from ????? until this is resolved in writing. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 07-07-2012 11:29 AM                        quote: Louis Bornwasser And don't book anything from ????? until this is resolved in writing. Louis Ha! Mike actually is in a better position than most to boycott a studio but still the studios really will not care about any independent small town theater boycotting them. The studios have the power in this situation.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-07-2012 10:29 PM                        Just morally wrong to send along any more money. Louis  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 07-08-2012 11:19 AM                        Louis it is easy for you to say it is morally wrong you don' have to pay his bills. It is real life if they have a movie his patrons want to see he has duty to them as well. He also has a duty to have cash flow in his business. I love it when someone tells you can't do something because they feel it is morally wrong. My morals are between me and God and he is the one that will do the final judging. Disappointing you or anyone like doesn't really bother me. I don't steal, don't false report anything. Pay my bills and treat others the way I want to be treated. By your reasoning you better not have trash collection because 90% of them are owned and operated by organized crime.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-08-2012 12:47 PM                     It isn't like Louis didn't run a VERY successful business for decades...including paying bills, serving customers...etc.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.