|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: AMC shares plunge 25% after pre-announcing ‘shocking’ quarterly loss
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-06-2017 12:26 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Believe it or not, you'd have to be careful to stay within a $100 budget. In the outer 'burbs of the LA Metro (where I live) that would get you a nice meal for two, plus a movie in a decent 'plex, with concessions, but you still wouldn't come away with much change. In downtown LA or Hollywood, however, you'd only avoid busting into three figures by eating at Chipotle or Five Guys. In the Hollywood tourist district, $20 could disappear on parking alone.
In the end, a lot of American couples and families can't afford blowing $100, $200 or more just to eat out at a restaurant and go to a movie on any sort of regular basis. Not everyone is making $200,000 per year or more. For a lot of people getting out of the house for dinner and a movie a rare treat. And, again, that's just dinner and a movie, nothing all that special. The high price of these fairly ordinary activities encourages lower and middle income people to just eat at home and watch movies at home more often. It's easy for the staying at home thing to turn into a habit. Advances in technology have both improved the quality of watching movies at home and greatly increased the convenience level. That's making staying at home even more alluring.
The movie industry can't survive on only the revenue of rich people. The same goes for the restaurant industry. Both industries overall are in a down-turn. I think some of the down-turn is a direct response to the higher prices. People in middle and lower income brackets have seen very little in the way of income growth. Wages are stagnant. So many people are increasingly squeezed and they're looking for any areas of relief. Just look how scared cable and satellite companies are these days with all the cord cutting.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 08-06-2017 02:03 PM
Our drive-in is located in the shadow of Seattle. We have 3 screens, so we're unaffected by the holdover and percentage challenges single-screeners face.
Long ago, we came to the conclusion that expecting regular, repeat attendance conflicted with how Hollywood sells its product to us. To keep prices down to where we were barely making a dime at the boxoffice in order to provide what the customers considered "value", we were being held to sub-run product. Even worse, the old "carload" concept was bringing in a class of patrons who had no respect for the property.
Some 25 years ago, we moved to what we consider an "event" mode. Our screens usually cover the top 8 mainstream pictures. We charge what I consider to be a fair price at the boxoffice... maybe a buck or so below the chains, and we do a "cook-to-order" concessions that is not, by any means, cheap. That provides an income that is relatively well-balanced between boxoffice and concessions. In other words, we're not dependng on popcorn sales for our survival.
This year, we replaced our main playground and added a second. On a night when we have family pictures, they look like ant farms.
We don't get hung up over people who bring in their McD's cheap food. So long as the lines are out the door and I couldn't handle the added business that the practice might give me, I see no reason to get excited about it. We don't charge a "food permit" fee for the same reason, though I understand some other owners are passionate about the practice.
So, for us, positioning as an "event" works. Many people wouldn't come here every weekend for what we charge, but that's OK. They look forward to when they can come. For a drive-in, they get about the best technical presentation they can get and, given the lines, they seem to be pleased with our menu. Best of all, they respect the place and take good care of it. Vandalism has all-but disappeared and it takes far less time to clean up than it did when we were "giving it away".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-06-2017 03:36 PM
Perception is a tough one to overcome. Movies, like it or not, debate it or not, are perceived, by the masses, as price gouging on both the ticket and food. They don't care that a business has to have a certain level of profit in order to be in business (and stable).
There is also the rampant practice of current release movies available (illegally) for download on torrent sites. I know one exhibitor that JUST walked away (within the past month or so). He told me straight up, it is impossible to compete with free. The kids in his small down can see the same movies he is showing via illegal streaming but the kids don't see it as illegal (nor do their parents) any more than the napster generation cared that stealing music was just that, stealing. There is this misperception that if you don't take a physical thing, you aren't really stealing.
So you have that aspect.
You definitely have a problem with the void of ideas from Hollywood. They keep dipping into the same well and get surprised when it comes up dry. We need new movies with new ideas/stories and not reboots, sequels, prequels, part 29...etc. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule and some franchises are built around the notion different adventures with the same character (e.g. James Bond) but we REALLY need NEW and DIFFERENT ideas out there.
And then there is the high cost of exhibition now compared to prior years. Naturally, I'm most familiar with the projection side of things. Projectors used to be 50-year items and, comparatively, not very expensive. Except for 70mm systems, a typical 35mm system would cost quite a bit less than even the cheapest DCinema system. The biggest expense to projection, historically, was probably the projectionist(s) and exhibition did their damndest to get rid of them. But even in the auditoriums too...we went from sloped floor theatres to stadium seating to now luxury seating and with each change, it costing progressively more to build/maintain and fewer seats to sell.
But there is no mistaking it, regardless of the house nut to operate, if there isn't a sellable product (the movie), there is no business.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Bird
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 777
From: Perth, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 08-06-2017 06:28 PM
Very true Justin, they remember the Nominal amount, but the money is worth so much less. Tonight, we bump things up a buck for a triple feature to $13 (Canadian), but that includes 13% tax, so it's really a shade over $11 for 3 movies.
We've admired the business model such as Jack describes and have done our best along those lines. And though our concession prices are certainly still less than the multiplexes (our city patrons can't get over how "cheap" we are), most people always want to bring up the big indoor pricing and for the most part, I defend it. I understand why they can't afford to go as often as they'd like, but just look at these big, beautiful, new buildings, empty most of the day, heat, a/c, and Hollywood taking 60%. We have no roof, our customers provide the seating and no HVAC. I completely get why they have to charge it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-06-2017 11:03 PM
Yes, federal income tax is on top of that. The tax on gas is also nearly the highest (if not the highest) in the country. Depending on county and city taxes it's around 60-70 cents a gallon in total, putting the average price of a gallon in SoCal at around $3 (though with big local variations: between around $2.50 and $4, depending on where you buy it) currently.
By United States standards, taxation in California is extremely high, but not by European ones (sales tax at 20% throughout the European Union, income tax typically at 20-40%, $6-7 for a US gallon of gas, etc.). There again, like movie theater tickets, local incomes tend to reflect the local cost of living, so it's horses for courses. I visited Denmark about a decade ago, and flicking through the local paper in the hotel bar over breakfast, was astonished to see jobs that only required high school graduate level skills (secretary, administrative assistant, that sort of thing) being advertised with salaries of €60-70k. Then, when the bill came and I found myself paying €9 for the cup of coffee I'd just finished, it became a lot easier to understand why!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-07-2017 12:44 AM
On the off-topic topic of gasoline taxes, most Americans are getting an extreme bargain on that front. Here in Oklahoma the fuel tax hasn't been raised since 1993. But the cost of building and maintaining highways has roughly quadrupled since then. It costs an insane fortune to build a highway or any other big infrastructure item anymore in the United States. We are literally pricing ourselves out of being able to build any big things. We haven't built a major airport in more than 20 years. The Atlanta Falcons new Mercedez Benz stadium cost $1.7 billion, which is over 7 times what the now demolished Georgia Dome cost when it opened 25 years ago. I'm pretty sure the average wage has not increased 7-fold in that same span of time. Not only is the United States literally pricing itself out of being able to build big infrastructure projects, its legal system is totally suffocating such efforts and causing the cost of such projects to skyrocket even worse. To put it in one perspective: if our Interstate Highway System did not already exist and America was going to try to build out the original 40,000 mile network today the effort would be absolutely, laughably, hopelessly impossible.
quote: Jack Ondracek
Some 25 years ago, we moved to what we consider an "event" mode. Our screens usually cover the top 8 mainstream pictures. We charge what I consider to be a fair price at the boxoffice... maybe a buck or so below the chains, and we do a "cook-to-order" concessions that is not, by any means, cheap. That provides an income that is relatively well-balanced between boxoffice and concessions. In other words, we're not depending on popcorn sales for our survival.
I think the limited programming is one thing that is hurting mainstream multiplex theaters. But I don't know. Booking is a double-edged sword. A theater operator would like to give his customer base a good variety of content. But there's the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I've sat in theater auditoriums alone or nearly alone on numerous occasions watching movies that are now considered classics, such as The Usual Suspects. I know people who watched that movie on DVD and then popped off the ignorant comment, "it's a shame Lawton's theaters don't get movies like this." And that invited my response, "the movie actually played here; it's not the theater's fault you weren't up on movies." But, then again, the damned movie studios really only advertise the biggest, fast food releases with any sort of effort.
Still, one of the biggest selling points of digital projection was allowing theaters to show a much greater variety of programming thanks to no more expensive film prints. Well, here we are some 10 years after the widespread conversion. From my observations nothing in terms of bookings has really changed. It's still the same limited number of movies playing at the multiplex. No greater variety at all.
quote: Justin Hamaker
One of the things I think has hurt our industry is the push for 3D over the last 5 years. Although it's not really an issue any longer, I think we turned off some customers because they would come to a showing and find out it was only available at that time in 3D with the more expensive ticket.
It's not just 3D that's hurting the situation. It's basically anything in the theater that is perceived as being good. If you want to see the movie on a big screen then please fork over $3-$4 more for that bullet point. If you want surround sound that actually sounds like surround sound and not some lame, wimpy, low volume, TV speakers bullshit then please fork over some more money for that as well. Things like big recliner seats or eating at your theater seat can also add more money to the bill.
Like I said before, I'm a bit put off by this stuff. I'm willing to pay a premium to watch a movie shot on 65mm film negative shown on a 70mm print. That's actually a pretty big deal to me. But all the other shit most certainly is NOT.
To repeat things I've already said here and in other posts, I didn't have to pay a premium to watch a movie in 3D back in the 80's or 90's when it was on film. Digital started the price gouging on that front when it really wasn't necessary. Now the popularity of 3D is in the toilet, 100% thanks to that price gouging. 30 years ago the film-based 3D, at least to my eyes, was every bit as good as the high priced digital stuff is now. But it did not cost anything extra. I can't be the only person who is aware of that giant difference.
I watched a lot of movies on 70mm film prints during my high school and college days. None of those shows carried an extra price premium for the bigger film strip, even in world premiere venues like the Ziegfield Theater in Manhattan. 35mm and 70mm shows were the same damned price. Most people weren't aware of the difference and merely chose the show time most convenient to them.
I didn't have to pay a huge price premium for either 70mm mag sound or 5.1 digital sound with dynamics that would punch the shit out of the air in my chest. There's hardly any theaters anywhere that deliver sound like that anymore regardless of the price. It could be a freaking $50 per ticket price and still sound like the wimpy TV speakers at home. That's one of the things I miss most about the old GCC Northpark 1-2 theater. That #1 THX screen had a sound system that could really startle the hell out of you, especially if you weren't expecting the dynamics of it. That room had all the punch of any Lie-MAX venue yet beat any Lie-MAX venue hands sound on the overall sound quality. Music sounded awesome in that 1000+ seat room and big action epics sounded awesome in there too. But it didn't cost anything extra to visit that theater. You could visit other more ordinary theaters in DFW and pay the same price to watch a show.
So, yeah, I think the big price (and quality) difference between "standard" priced screens and "premium" screens is a problem. And it's an even bigger problem when the higher priced auditoriums are NOT delivering the goods. If I'm going to pay an extra surcharge to see a movie in a certain auditorium there had better be some measurable justification for it.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic