|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Entertainment Weekly article - "Why Isn't Anyone Going to the Movies This Year?"
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-10-2005 11:07 PM
Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices? Nice restaurants get just as much markup on a "fancy dinner" -- even though their building, equipment, etc. cost is FAR less than a movie theatre. I have seen no griping about the ridiculous cost of snacks in hotel rooms...way more expensive than theatres. Nobody is griping about the cost of beer and hotdogs at ballgames and concerts, even though they are WAY higher than theatres. Concert t-shirts -- over $30 now, but no magazine articles about that. Concert tickets -- up to $300 for a two-hour show by some dinosaur 70s act -- and there is ADVERTISING ALL OVER THE ARENA, and even on the stage sometimes. I don't see any bitching about jewelry stores marking up diamonds 400% and more. Cars cost at least 20 times what they did in the 1970s...no complaints about that. I don't see any other industry having its costs and markups trotted out for the world to see in major magazines.
Why doesn't just one of these magazine articles tell the world how much we have to spend on equipment, advertising, utilities, insurance, shipping, payroll, and "square footage?" Why doesn't someone point out that the seats we provide, anywhere from a hundred to 500 or more in each room, cost over $150 to $200 for every single one? Why don't they tell people about what it costs to put in a good Dolby or DTS system these days? And why don't they report how much we spend every year on cleaning up the mess and repairing damages caused by the people we are working to serve?
No...all they can do is trot out the old reliables: Theatres keep half of the boxoffice....theatres sell a buck worth of popcorn for six bucks...theatres all have sticky floors (and that's stupid too -- I can't remember the last time I was in a theatre with a sticky floor, unless there was a kiddie matinee in progress)...theatres make big bucks on advertising...it just makes me want to go postal on some of these stupid writers.
/RANT
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 05-11-2005 01:22 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices?
That's an explanation that as long as I remember working in circuits to try to explain to the customers when they make a big stink about concession prices.
We tell them that "we're not in the concession business, but in the movie presentation business, and with having only so limited downtime (intermissions), we have to sell any product as much as possible since we're not making any money when people are sitting in the auditoriums. Thus, there has to be that tradeoff in making a profit, and that's to have these 4000 percent markups in our concession prices from wholesale prices.
This is why the concept of the megaplex-to have continual snakbar flow at all times without any downtime as with the small single to 6 screen complexes.
Snakbar attendants sitting around not selling items isn't doing the theatre justice in making a profit. Thus with continual flow, it's like a production plant of sorts-always making money with 'product' that they sell.
Some theatres even have "hawker salespeople" - employees with the carts selling items outside of the concession stand to "sell" to the ones who didn't want to stand in line when their show is about to start."
(It's scary to think that a 2-large drink and large popcorn combo only cost the theatre less than a dollar, but we have to tag the customer that 1000 percent markup to break even.)
You think that they buy this explanation? Nope, nada, nien, or what have you.
So, we explain further: "Film companies grab at least 70 percent of the money out of the gate, which leaves us 30 percent to operate with. Plus, every person walks into that door is costing us money and we need to make up for their presence in the buildings. Also, it doesn't help any when the standard Hollywood budget for a film is so frikken high, that we have to "pay" their for their expenses."
If a theatre isn't at least is making 20 percent profit each day, it might as well fold up and let the mice have fun with the building.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-13-2005 03:26 PM
In the early 1990s, I went to the movies about 4 times a week.
Today, it's only once a week, sometimes less. Reasons?
1. Most new movies are predictable and boring because they try to please all audiences. No edges, nothing surprising. Why should I spend money to see old films remade with inferior storytelling and superflous CGI effects and "stars" I don't give a damn about?
2. Print quality (here in Germany) is often so bad that it is painful for me to watch movies on a big screen. Last week, I calculated the number of OK screenings I saw this years:
Out of 30 shows, only 4 were without serious fault (sharpness, framing, print steadiness, graininess etc.)
3. I am fed up arguing with idiots working at the local multiplexes who are unable to recognize a total out-of-focus image or notice that half their speakers are damaged.
4. I hardly watch anything on TV and DVD but old movies. No downloading, renting of video tapes or DVDs.
5. More often than not I find myself reading the program tables, desperately trying to find a film that is not a sequel, remake or kid's stuff.
6. Watching foreign (non-US) films is no alternative because most suffer from what we call the "euro-pudding" syndrome. In a way similar to the way in which marketing research and testing has flattened American movies, European films get more boring, predictable and constructed (casting, stories, visual style), there is no true identity to these movies but an international look of "concept" moviemaking camouflaging as "arthouse".
I don't mind the admission price or expensive drinks, but the current movie experience is so watered down that I actually have to force myself sometimes to go see a new movie. Depressing!
| IP: Logged
|
|
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-13-2005 10:11 PM
Discretionary spending (that which is non-essential) plays a part. Every budget has a limit. Consider a young adult couple with children. Saturday night at the movies admission: $15-20. Add transportation, babysitter, and refreshments: $25-40. Do the math.
Then you ask: "Can they do without it?" "Is it worth it?" "Could the time be better spent doing something else?" "Could they find something else to do for less?"
Cost, necessity, value, time, alternatives. Any one of these can be a contributory negative factor. That means fewer fannies in the seats, and that is the real measure. Your concession per cap goes to hell if you don't have any heads to sell to!
Figures don't lie, but liars figure, as the saying goes. Just read the quotes in the trades. The suits at the studios and the higher ups at NATO always cite the increase in yearly grosses, but the real fact is that prices are up and attendance is down.
You can only hang your hat on the argument that the business is "cyclical" for so long. Is it, really? More people going to the movies than ever before? Sure, there are more people living in the USA every year, too. Is the percentage of moviegoers increasing? Don't think so.
Then there are all those distributors who keep increasing their percentage of the grosses. Used to be a time when a 50-50 split seemed excessive!! Exhibs- check your contracts. That would be cheap by today's standards.
In the meantime, fixed exhibitor costs continue to rise: taxes, insurance, minimum wage, rent. You can only pass these costs through to your patrons for so long, and you can't keep raising concession prices forever either.
At some point you will encounter buyer resistance. The industry may have already reached that point in some areas of the country. When the bottom line of the balance sheet spells "loss" instead of "profit", the house lights will start to go out.
When you stop and think about taking over an enterprise that is floundering, you'd better ask yourself what it is that you could do better than the previous owner. I think in this industry, at the present time, the answer is: NOT MUCH.
And the studios? They will keep turning out ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif) and demand more money for it. Don't like the terms, Mr Exhibitor? Do without the picture. In the meantime, the guy down the street will take it, so if you miss out, it's your own damned fault. And, "oh yes", they say, "we never told you to build so many screens" while in the same breath they beg you to take multiple prints of their front-end loaded, open wide realeases.
I had best stop, lest I awaken with a horse's head next to me in my bed. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-16-2005 10:52 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Why is it that movie theatres get the bad rap all the time for concession prices? Nice restaurants get just as much markup on a "fancy dinner" -- even though their building, equipment, etc. cost is FAR less than a movie theatre. I have seen no griping about the ridiculous cost of snacks in hotel rooms...way more expensive than theatres. Nobody is griping about the cost of beer and hotdogs at ballgames and concerts, even though they are WAY higher than theatres.
The problem with your comparison between movie theaters and restaurants has to do with the level of service provided. In a restaurant, you get to sit down, and a waitress serves you your drinks and your meal, and comes back to make sure that you're happy with your purchase.
Even in fast food joints, lines don't get very long, and the price for a 12oz soda at McDonalds isn't anywhere near the price of the same 12oz soda at the multiplex (yet it comes in the same paper cup and straw). Some theaters are now making you pour your own soda, so there's even less service than before. Why not just install a vending machine, sheesh!
Anyone who takes the snacks out of the mini-bar at a hotel is just nuts, or on the company expense account! A family going to the hotel can bring in their own snacks. Last I checked, most theaters would frown on me bringing in a bag of snacks and cooler of drinks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's logical that if the prices are going to be high, then the service needs to make the price worth it. How many theaters are focused on delivering the best experience possible? If the experience at the movie theater is top-notch, I think you will find people are less concerned about doing a price comparison.
Get them to stop thinking about price by making it a value proposition instead. If theaters stop treating people like cattle and more like customers, and my optimistic side says that concerns about the price will go way down.
If service goes down at a restaurant, people stop coming. Is the corollary to a movie theater that big of a stretch?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!
Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 05-16-2005 12:56 PM
From Sunday's Los Angeles Times Calendar section:
quote:
Hollywood Diary
The Big Sleep that Awaits the Big Screen
By David Freeman, Special to The Times
THE only thing about Hollywood that is an ironclad certainty is that it will change. That's its nature. Predicting just what will happen next, however, is any fool's guess. With that caveat, I'll put on my fool's cap long enough to predict the end of movie theaters. I'm not the first to say this and I don't think theaters as we know them will disappear all at once, but it will happen. When technology and money conspire all you can do is try to get out of the line of fire.
DVDs, the silver discs that are keeping Hollywood afloat, are not only cheaper to make (by far) than theatrical prints, but they require relatively simple technology to use. The ever-narrowing gap between the date of a theatrical release of a film and the subsequent release of that same picture on DVD is the key. Soon enough, the releases will be simultaneous — in theaters and in what's now called home video, either on a disc or in some form of pay TV — all over the world or at least in whatever countries can be signed up. The one-day gross will be gigantic. Piracy will be defanged (though we won't entirely be rid of it.)
The studios don't own theaters and haven't since the 1940s, when the Supreme Court told them they had to sell them all — the so-called consent decrees. As it stands, the studios have to make deals with the exhibitors. The studios drive hard bargains, but their power is nothing like it will be when they not only make the film but also manufacture the device you need to watch it.
Theater chains are still profitable. There's at least one company (Entertainment Properties of Kansas City, Mo.) that continues to build multiplexes. Wall Street likes the stock, so in the short run we'll continue to see theater construction. Eventually many of those buildings will be converted to churches or perhaps branches of Costco. Home screens will get better and the digital quality of the discs will become richer and finally indistinguishable from 35-millimeter film stock. Some theaters will remain, but projected cinema will eventually become something that's done at museums.
For an international company that makes movies and the various home electronic contraptions that can show them, this will be irresistible. The situation that will result will be eerily similar to the days before owning theaters and producing the movies to show in them — vertical integration, in business-speak — was outlawed.
Theater chains will have to figure a way to get in on it, or go out of business. And future generations will not have the communal experience of sitting in a high-ceiling, church-like room with a few hundred strangers, watching giant gods and goddesses cavort. Also, no matter how improved those home screens become, they will never be on the heroic scale of the ArcLight or the Chinese in present-day Hollywood. That means that the studios will stop making movies on the scale of "The Aviator" in favor of pictures with the visual flair of a sitcom.
There's yet another wrinkle in the piracy war. The president recently signed a bill that makes it a felony to use a camcorder in a movie theater. The laws of aesthetics should have outlawed this barbaric practice long ago. Some idiot sits in a theater and makes an illicit copy of what's on the screen and sells the result, which is blurry and sometimes has people walking in front of the camera. The price of getting this law passed is that businesses are now permitted to sell special "cleaned-up" tapes and DVDs of commercial movies.
If you'd like to have a copy of, say, "Charlie's Angels" but you don't want to see the ladies jumping around semiclad (for myself, I can't think of any other reason to watch that thing), you'll be able to buy a censored version you can show to the kids. The companies that do this point out that the uncensored version is still available and that they are only offering an additional choice. The studios accepted this deal to get the first part of the law passed.
The directors screamed. My first response to their anger was to agree — this is a ludicrous turn of events. But on reflection, I thought about all the censorship of that sort the studios have embraced. Special edited versions of their movies for airplanes. Years of film butchery for TV showing. The horrors of "colorizing." The directors lived with all that without much more than a whimper. Cable TV changed expectations. People are used to seeing movies as they were released. The writers haven't been up in arms over this one. I guess screenwriters have grown used to their work being mauled by philistines and presented in their name.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
that afternoon.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). He ended by commenting on the recent Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston break up claiming Pitt was right to leave Aniston because he wants children and she doesn't.
![[Shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic