Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers?
Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 08-10-2013 02:55 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thinking about this further, I think there are three names people associate with movies in my market: Cinedigm, DLP, and Dolby. We have been running policy trailers every show for all three since we went digital. Consumers may not have any idea what Cinedigm relates to, but they know it's "a new paradigm in cinema". And they probably associate DLP with picture. Since we run the Dolby balls trailer with every show, they probably associate Dolby with sound - they may even have a perception of the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-10-2013 03:34 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We run Dolby's Sphere with shows aimed at younger people, but if it's a show aimed at the older crowd I'll use the Countdown trailer. I still wish Dolby would come out with something that's actually musical, rather than just clanking and banging and whooshing.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 08-10-2013 04:25 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dolby should never have issued the Sphere (aka "Balls") snipe in 5.1

While you may play the Cinedigm snipe with each show...I doubt your customers are conscious of it. The only time they see it is in a Cinedigm VPF theatre. DLP people may know a bit due to consumer stuff but that is mostly high-end.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 08-10-2013 06:38 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But, is RPX and D-BOX worth it since you have to pay extra for these event formats?

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 08-10-2013 06:57 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe. Maybe not.

In practical terms, I doubt it really matters.

If the product is of "good" quality and there's a catchy name and an up-charge, people will (generally) assume it's "better" quality and therefore walk away feeling that it was worth the added cost.

Most people probably expect these places will have a really big screen, really loud sound and stadium seating. Probably all of these branded "experiences" deliver that. But...so do many non-branded screens, without the up-charge.

A catchy name and an up-charge probably couldn't lend a "halo effect" if the product is clearly inferior to what other cinemas are offering. But I could be wrong.

I really expected a backlash against up-charges by now but, here we are.

As for the Dolby (and THX) trailers -- I wish they would release the older ones as DCP's. Some variety would be great.

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 08-10-2013 07:21 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
While you may play the Cinedigm snipe with each show
You would actually be surprised. I've a number of customers recite, "Cinedigm, a new paradigm in cinema". Again, they have absolutely no clue what it means. To them it's probably just a marker for the transition between pre-show and the actual program. Since we started running it not long after our digital transition, I would assume some simply equate Cinedigm with digital cinema is some sense. However, I don't recall having a single person inquire as to what Cinedigm actually refers to.

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Crouch
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 128
From: Holywood, ca, usa
Registered: May 2006


 - posted 08-11-2013 05:10 AM      Profile for Christopher Crouch   Email Christopher Crouch       Edit/Delete Post 
The average customer probably recognizes IMAX and Dolby (in a generic sense, not specific formats like Dolby Digital). THX might still be a "name" among customers over a certain age, but the brand has certainly lost name recognition with most consumers. DTS and 70mm 6-track would likely be something only the hard core element would acknowledge. The various exhibitor "big experience" brands would probably vary greatly in name recognition, with most people just thinking "the big screen", rather than associating a specific name with it.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 08-20-2013 02:14 PM      Profile for Scott Jentsch   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Jentsch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My guess is that IMAX has the most, largely due to the massive expansion and marketing push that has been done over the past few years.

Dolby follows that closely, simply because they have been around so long and their name is synonymous with movie sound. Anyone paying the least bit of attention would recognize the logo and its association with movies, even if they couldn't tell you what the company did or how its products affected their moviegoing experience.

DTS is going to have some recognition, but greatly diminished compared to Dolby. People interested in the home theater hobby are going to recognize it, but probably not most casual moviegoers.

The generic "surround sound" term is going to have more comprehension than any of the actual companies involved in it, but 5.1 or 7.1 et al don't mean much to non-enthusiasts.

THX would probably have quite a bit of appeal to people, even if they didn't know exactly what it was or understood how it impacted the moviegoing experience. There has been enough branding over the years that it would take very little marketing to make it a viable brand again.

That fact is helped by all the big-screen concept theaters out there that use "X" in their names. AVX, XD, RPX, ETX, etc. all play off the effectiveness of the THX branding. I also believe that such brands are only effective regionally in the markets where they have been implemented. Ask someone outside of Texas what AVX meant to them, and they probably would look at you with bewilderment. Such brands only mean anything to the customers who have had it pushed in front of them, which means only those customers that go to Santikos theaters, in the AVX example.

70mm is a niche format with an ever-decreasing base of people that even know what it was, much less have ever seen a movie in the format. This probably would have the least recognition and comprehension of all of them.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, how many theaters that utilize any of these brands actually provide information about them, and how they impact the moviegoing experience? Some web sites do a good job, while others do nothing or hide it so well, it's nearly impossible to find.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Gordon
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 580
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Aug 2005


 - posted 08-20-2013 02:23 PM      Profile for Paul Gordon   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Gordon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IMAX

and for the film nuts 35MM in this age of DCP.

All the other names don't bring people into then cinema... (other then 70mm). Sound wise no one cares anymore its all "digital"... digital good.

 |  IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 08-20-2013 04:01 PM      Profile for Pravin Ratnam   Email Pravin Ratnam   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Quite frankly, most consumers didn't care whether it was DTS or Dolby Digital when multiplexes used to promote them in the 90s. I know, I didn't as long as it was one of them. THX was a selling point to me at the time. But these days, theaters do not advertise the stuff I am interested in. Is it 4K or 2K digital projection? No clue. What kind of digital projectors do they use? No clue. What kind of sound do they use these days? No clue.

IMAX is no longer a big selling point to me after all the LIEMAX crap, especially for movies with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

Just crank up the resolution of the next digital presentation format and I am there to watch it in the theaters.

Sadly, I may be in a small group of consumers that gives brightness huge priority, but these days, I have actually chosen the smaller auditorium to watch certain movies because I was fed up with the dim projection in the "showcase" major screen in a certain multiplex. Wasn't projection brightness part of the THX certification of a screen ?

70MM used to be a huge draw in countries like India. Hell, on a recent visit, I had a brand of "dosa"(looks like a crepe for those who do not know what it is) called 70MM dosa which was to signify how huge the dosa was.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003


 - posted 08-20-2013 08:31 PM      Profile for Mark Hajducki   Email Mark Hajducki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A few years ago Kodak would have been high on the list, unfortunately the brand is now the most valuable part of the company.

A problem with the Dolby brand is the range of products it is/was associated with. At a former site I worked in had a digital equiped screen that still had Dolby A-Type sound used for film presentations (until the site went fully digital film was still commonly used). The customer experience of Dolby sound their would not be the same as the experience of the latest Atmos System. The other main problem is that most digital films do not have a branded soundtrack.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 08-20-2013 11:39 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dolby. No contest. We're talking over 40 years of history. And a brand with recognizable "equity" that extends far outside the techie circle it serves. Movies like Jaws and Star Wars as well as the first consumer tape decks equipped with Dolby noise reduction made Dolby a household name in the late 1970's into the early 1980's.

For instance, the modern version of 70mm (the Todd-AO variant from the 1950's) has almost always had 6-track audio. It wasn't until late 1976 with the re-make of A Star Is Born that Dolby got added to the "70mm" mark. Star Wars solidified that in 1977. "70mm" soon turned into a brand no longer a complete phrase without the "six-track Dolby Stereo" subhead added. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan brought about the most popular 70mm logo, complete with the "six-track Dolby Stereo presentation" subhead.

Dolby's brand name has faded some in recent years. Its 3D process does not have anywhere near the publicity of RealD or IMAX 3D. The revolutionary Dolby Atmos process has little if any advertising muscle behind it -certainly nothing in support coming from any of the major Hollywood studios.

In past 20 years DTS has gained a lot of traction, particularly in the area of home theater. DTS has been dominant in the field of surround sound music. DTS is pretty much the de facto surround sound format for Blu-ray disc, reversing the trend Dolby Digital enjoyed on DVD. On the downside, DTS is very much now a home-only kind of thing. The theatrical process is now, wrongly, called "Datasat Digital Sound" -IMHO a huge marketing mistake. Datasat's D-cinema is based on that brand rather than using the equity of DTS. The home and theatrical units of what used to be the same company should have worked out some kind of arrangement. Oh well.

Many average movie-goers know of the IMAX brand, but far too many are unknowing or ignorant of the differences between true 15-perf 70mm IMAX projection (combined with 15-perf 65mm IMAX original cinematography as opposed to "DMR" blow-ups from 4-perf 35mm film or HDTV quality video).

Going further, most average movie-goers probably couldn't pass any sort of mock exam about various features or achievements in technology of Dolby, DTS, SDDS, IMAX or that of any other commercial movie theater technology vendor.

 |  IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004


 - posted 08-21-2013 02:04 PM      Profile for Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email Sam Graham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm going with IMAX because "SEE IT IN IMAX" is so heavily used in television advertising and even news hype. That wasn't true with any of the sound formats ever. IF an exhibitor even bothered noting anything about sound in their ads, unless the ad was Act III, it probably read simply "Digital".

In its day, 70mm would have been my vote.

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 08-22-2013 12:34 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It seems we are talking about two different things here:

Brand recognition vs the actual drawing power of brand.

The original post (and the topic of the thread) is only concerned with recognition, in which case, I suspect Dolby has the strongest brand recognition (with IMAX probably in 2nd place). The current "AVX/RPX/ETX thing" probably has the least brand recognition.

And then there is the issue of the public's general understanding as to what is behind any of those brands.

 |  IP: Logged

Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002


 - posted 08-22-2013 02:39 PM      Profile for Robert E. Allen   Email Robert E. Allen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Since starting in the business professionally in 1950 I have seen a lot of changes. And those changes have been great. But I have never seen or heard any customer choose any theatre I worked at or owned because of what kind of equipment was used to reproduce the sound or picture. They chose the theatre based on who or what was on the screen. I suspect those who choose a theatre based on the equipment today are a few of what I call "technogeeks". A good story with a strong cast would bring in the customers even if it's in a 1.66x1 format, 2d, black and white with mono sound.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.