Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers?

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-22-2013 07:04 PM

quote: Scott Jentsch
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 think you're right! OK that's it.....I'm changing the name of my theatre to the RoxyX.

| IP: Logged

Jim Henk
Master Film Handler

Posts: 364
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-22-2013 11:37 PM

One of the ways that companies sold Blu-Ray over DVD was to have a side-by-side of the exact same show. Shocked a lot of people when they saw the difference in details. Like they say, folks don't know what they want until they know what's available.

But yes, there's a whole lot of people who don't care. I don't understand.

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 08-23-2013 02:53 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think you're right! OK that's it.....I'm changing the name of my theatre to the RoxyX.

Or just the ROX.

(as in 'this theatre rox').

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-23-2013 08:37 PM

Wouldn't CinemaScope qualify in this category?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-23-2013 10:44 PM

Yeah but I'd wager almost NObody knows what that means anymore.

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 08-24-2013 12:50 PM

quote: Robert E. Allen
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.

I'm going to re-post this on every new page in this thread until y'all finally get it. LOL

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-24-2013 01:27 PM

Ok Manny I'll bite. While I agree with Robert's statement, it isn't ENTIRELY true. I know of many non-technogeeks that will not patronize a specific theater here or there because of the following items.

*No masking. It's a bigger deal than people realize and is NOT a cost saving measure in the big picture. (It's also a requirement of DCI, so every one of those theaters that skip the masking shouldn't be getting VPF checks.) Regardless people feel cheated as they are teased with a big screen and either due to the movie's aspect ratio or just a bad room design don't get the screen filled with the movie and they feel ripped off no matter how big the actual picture ended up being. This is a bigger problem with auditorium that don't have side masking, because the height of the image has more affect on where people choose to sit over width...and I know of masking-less theaters with a 1.33 screen that then play a 2.40 ratio show on it and then all of a sudden the desire to move closer hits (which may or may not be possible once the show starts).

*Bad sound. You know the kind, where your ears bleed from the excessive shrill of the high frequencies and lack of low frequencies to balance it. Non-technogeeks don't know WHY the sound is bad, but they DO NOTICE that it is bad.

*Bad picture. This one isn't near as noticeable as bad sound to the non-technogeeks, but I can't begin to tell you how many people have come to a theater of mine and said repeatedly "wow look at that picture, wow, damn that looks really good, this looks soooooo much better than the blah, blah theater down the street from me" in amazement as if they had never seen a properly setup (and spec'd) system.

*Bad seats. Uncomfortable seats are uncomfortable seats. An uncomfortable seat should NEVER be a distraction to a point where it pulls someone out of the movie.

So the non-technogeeks may have no idea what kind of projector or speaker is being used, but I do assure you they "notice" and they DO "know". The real question is to what extent do they vote to their approval or dissatisfaction? Many people can't be bothered to drive further to see that movie they wanted to watch, but I've consistently found as people are introduced to a quality presentation that they will seek it out in the future, even if it means driving a long distance. And no these are not "technogeeks".

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 08-24-2013 01:49 PM

True -- sucky theatres suck, and people will likely avoid them, once they know this about the place.

But, at what point does the general public decide that a theatre is "good enough"? The theatres you describe are obviously substandard. Maybe even sub-substandard if multiple factors conspire.

But what about a "standard" movie theatre? What's the level of satisfaction with something that's "right down the middle"?

Also: Do "great" theatres suffer if their technology is non-branded? In other words -- getting back to the original question that started this whole thing -- how important is techno-branding to today's general public?

I'm curious to know:

Does branding affect decision to select one venue over another?

How well does the general public actually understand what's behind the brand?

Do loyal followers of a certain brand know the key differences between their chosen brand versus the competing brand(s)? In other words, is it an intellectual decision or an emotional attachment?

Returning to the notion of the "standard" movie theatre...

Imagine two identical, well-equipped theatres, both showing the same movie at the same show time...I wonder would happen if:

We branded one of them with some kind of gimmicky name; or

We advertised the projection and/or sound format of one, but not the other (even though they are identical).

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 08-25-2013 07:40 AM

I tend to agree with Brad, but sometimes I think I'm just a dreamer. I watched a film with a friend months ago, the auditorium was small and the projector was a brand new Christie 2210.
The picture was ok - just too small - but the sound was something incredibly dull. Just the volume was very low, I think something lower than 4.0, and dialogues had been slightly raised to compensate. Result: a sort of mono film, with no LF, no surrounds (but every now and then during louder scenes I could barely hear the loudest surround effects), just dialogues, which were not too bad I must admit. That was an action movie I had seen it before (in Atmos, so it hurted even more!).

Comment from my friend at the end of the film: "the sound was not bad".

Manny's comment is solid: what is the threshold for a patron to distinguish between BAD and GOOD?

Steve: is the Sphere logo available in 5.1? I liked the idea of the 7.1 version because it does not work in 5.1 (All....you)!

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-25-2013 12:34 PM

The Sphere logo WAS available in 5.1 on the TrailMix drives a while back, but everything Dolby has disappeared from those drives now.

It is not available on the Dolby Extranet site either -- in either format. Strange, because the Countdown trailer IS still available there.

It's too bad, because Sphere is a good trailer to use with action movies or kiddie movies.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 08-25-2013 04:13 PM

Mike, The heck you say? It is FIRST on the list of Dolby Content and Trailers.

I've been in this business a long time now too (finishing up my 33rd year). I have DEFINITELY been in various cinemas where a strong factor in the choice of the theatre was the brand of equipment used (Dolby). I've never heard a patron say they prefer a Norelco or Kinoton or Christie...etc. projector. They have no brand recognition there. However, I have had them definitely give high praise a for a theatre's projection and sound without knowing what was doing it (or who, in some cases). I have also definitely heard patrons comment on coming to specific theatres due to THX being on the marquee. Again, brand recognition with the home.

It would be pointless to boast a brand for something that does not have consumer recognition already...they have no frame of reference as to what it is.

I would say that in smaller markets that the brand thing means less than in bigger/more competitive markets.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-25-2013 08:36 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Mike, The heck you say? It is FIRST on the list of Dolby Content and Trailers.

Well...you're 'sort of' right. It's not called "Sphere" on that list, it's called "Dolby Surround 7.1 Trailer." So I could be forgiven for not spotting it.

And the 5.1 version is not there for sure!

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 08-25-2013 11:03 PM

There's lots of stuff in the average cinema that's usually not visibly branded, so most customers would never even know how to distinguish it.

Most people don't know what brand of projector you're using and very few cinemas run some kind of Barco DLP or Sony 4K trailer. Almost nobody knows the brand of screen you're using and neither that of your seats, unless it's something special/annoying like D-BOX.

Besides some "premium" formulas like D-IMAX, the sound system manufacturers have always had the most prominent branding. Dolby systems, in all its forms, have been the widest deployed sound systems for many years, so it is obvious that people recognize the Dolby brand the most.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 08-26-2013 08:03 AM

Even though I don't work in theaters, I do follow all the branding. And i can say it didn't make a difference at all to me what digital sound system the theater used as long as they used one of them in the 90s. I remember theaters used to actually take the trouble to mark DTS, Dolby Digital or SDDS for each theater in the newspaper listings. Even if one format was slightly better than the other, in practice, those differences would be less than the variation in one auditorium's superior acoustics and maintenance to another's. SO i never sweat the individual format and just went to the multiplex where I felt they did a better job running the shows.

Now THX certification was important to me in the 90s. Because I knew regardles of whch brand sound system or projector used, the overall presentation had to meet THX standards.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 08-26-2013 11:45 AM

quote:
Steve: is the Sphere logo available in 5.1? I liked the idea of the 7.1 version because it does not work in 5.1 (All....you)!

There is/was a version which only featured the "DOLBY" logo, the "All-Around-You" part is also there, but obviously not as "around" as the 7.1 version.

| 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

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.