Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screenvision is horrible.

This is topic Screenvision is horrible. in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010028

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-04-2009, 07:08 PM:

If you use Screenvision for your in-theater advertising, switch to someone else... anyone else. They suck! If you want to advertise in a theater, do NOT do it through Screenvision or your ad will look like ass!

-They do not care if the image is super dim, they do not send brighter bulbs for bigger screens if you are using slide projectors.

-Their slide projectors break down ALL the time (a slide projector lasting more than 3 weeks is very rare).

-Their ads are printed on the super-cheap AGFA film stock which is really tacky and stiff. Anyone who has worked or dealt with AGFA stock anywhere at any time in the entire history of mankind knows of its shittiness... except Screenvision. The reason Screenvision uses it is because it is cheap and they don't care that it affects the quality of the ads themselves. Screenvision's motto is "Cheaper is always better".

-Their rolling stock bounces all over the screen due to extremely unsteady printing which is only exacerbated by the horrible AGFA film stock.

-There is a ton of negative dirt and other artifacts printed on to the ads which will make your presentation seem like it is much worse than it is. Your audience will think you are completely incompetent.

-The ads which are printed in Dolby Digital cut out before the ad actually ends, forcing an unnecessary reversion to analog and back.

-Ads are sometimes not complete, they will fade out before it ends (printing error).

-Ads are sometimes labeled with the incorrect aspect ratio (Flat, Scope). You thought you had enough Scope ads to go on all of your scope films? Think again!

-The heads are sometimes printed as brown instead of black. You must leave most of the head on if you don't wish to cut out the opening sound. Looks awful onscreen.

I don't know anything about their digital ads, but I assume they are horrible if everything else is any indication. Everyone else besides my theater uses NCN or whatever it is called. I can see why, though I have never been impressed by any TV commercials in a theater since it is pretty tacky. Sometimes I feel like I'm working at a TV station instead of a theater.

All in all, Screenvision is extremely unprofessional in the way they produce their onscreen advertising materials. They might almost be acceptable for dollar theaters, but then again maybe not. If you value quality but still need the ad revenue to stay afloat financially, stay far away from Screenvision!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-04-2009, 07:24 PM:

How about "if you can't survive without on-screen advertising revenue, then just close now"? Do you really want to help the entire exhibition industry self-destruct?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-04-2009, 07:28 PM:

I wish I could say that, Scott, I really do. But that is a battle I or anyone else certainly cannot win. I wonder how theaters stayed in business before ads. Theaters these days can't seem to survive without them.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-04-2009, 07:51 PM:

I'm sorry, but this is a hot-button issue with me. If all the theatres that show slide ads, show film ads, put on crappy shows, mistreat their customers, and generally do more harm than good to the industry were to close tomorrow, the remaining exhibitors (i.e. the ones who actually care about quality) would be better off.

Do it right or get out of the business. If you need screen advertising to survive, then you are doing something wrong. I'm dead serious about that.

Exception: I have no trouble with trailers and concession promotions, or even with "rent our theatre" snipes. Those all relate to movies and promote filmgoing. It's the advertising from outside companies/organizations (car ads, join-the-army/navy/marines ads, toy ads, etc.) that I despise.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 08-04-2009, 09:35 PM:

Don't forget thoses horrible haed on and fanta comercials!!!! Enough to make you rip out your eyes!!!! [bs]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-04-2009, 09:49 PM:

That's the problem with this stupid forum. Nobody says what they think.

'specially you, Joe!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 08-04-2009, 09:51 PM:

Screenvision is evil incarnate. Unfortunately, as NCM is owned by Regal, AMC and Cinemark, the alternative may be worse.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2009, 10:29 PM:

Joe, you totally forgot to mention the "splices" that are within the Screenvision rolls. I have never EVER seen "splices" so un-splice-like. I could give a gorilla a roll of splicing tape, a knife and some film and he could do a better job.

You also forgot to mention that more often than not, the ad reels come in pre-scratched, even though they are brand new. These "splicing specialists" that put the ad packs together simply have no business handling film.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 08-04-2009, 10:55 PM:

At least some of you get your ad packages pre-assembled. Our current PG13 and R packages have over EIGHT minutes of Screenvision ads, all of which have to be assembled by us.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2009, 11:10 PM:

I would much rather my guys assemble them. At least they wouldn't (in theory) arrive all scratched up with soundtracks chopped and with splices that jam in the equipment.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-04-2009, 11:23 PM:

You forgot to add that Screenvision rolling stock ads are sent without cores, and apparently squished back and forth a few times before shipping, so that if the ads were not completely scratched by improperly loaded film during printing, they will at least have nice little short scratches all over.

They usually only arrive at our theater on Thursday, so forget getting anything ready ahead of time. Projectionists have nothing better to do on Thursday Eve/Friday morning, so obviously, we have many hours of time left to do rolling stock work. Sleep is for the weak and sickly anyway.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-05-2009, 03:26 AM:

Yes, it all arrives on Thursday (along with the slides) and it must all be on by the first show Friday or they will close down your theater (since they pretty much own it). I'm not even scheduled with enough hours to deal with it all.

quote: Jack Ondracek
Nobody says what they think.

That sure would make for a boring and uninspired world if everyone just sat around and took it up the shaft.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2009, 09:53 AM:

In this world of corporate fear, most people DO.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-05-2009, 12:26 PM:

Some good and bad points all around.

quote: Scott Norwood
Do it right or get out of the business. If you need screen advertising to survive, then you are doing something wrong. I'm dead serious about that.

I agree with the premise of this statement, but I also get the impression from Scott that any theater using screen advertising is unable to survive given what was said earlier in that same post:

quote: Scott Norwood
If all the theatres that show slide ads, show film ads, put on crappy shows, mistreat their customers, and generally do more harm than good to the industry were to close tomorrow, the remaining exhibitors (i.e. the ones who actually care about quality) would be better off.

We use both independent pre-show digital advertising and Screenvision rolling stock. Understandably there are, on rare occasions, complaints from customers that they did not pay for advertising when they purchased their ticket. I'd like to think, however, that our ads are coordinated into specific sets based on rating and look as good as can be expected on the screen. Moreover, I'd also like to report that, although we are a part of the Screenvision network, we do not rely on the quarterly checks to get by.

quote: Geena Phillips
Our current PG13 and R packages have over EIGHT minutes of Screenvision ads, all of which have to be assembled by us.

This is bothersome, and here is where Screenvision drops the ball big time. Our nine screen theater is in the Pittsburgh market in which 4:15 of total screen time has been agreed upon for any ad set regardless of rating. This seven, eight or even nine minute ad set crap is absolutely ridiculous! Occasionally we will get a fax from Screenvision acknowledging the run over and promising additional compensation, but those quit coming months ago, particularly concerning PG-13 and R-rated features.

quote: Joe Redifer
I'm not even scheduled with enough hours to deal with it all.

Me too, and until last May, I was responsible for coordinating the ad placements at three theaters. Maintenance went to hell, the booths were filthy, and it would take an average of four hours at the end of the campaigns just to fill out the bullshit affidavits. Half the time Screenvision wouldn't even send all of them. Hardly a set went by in which my district manager wasn't e-mailing New York for missing campaigns.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2009, 01:15 PM:

And then there is the problem of keeping track of what is a PG13 roll vs. an R roll vs. a PG roll, etc. I stand firm by my argument that there is simply no reason why Screenvision cannot create ONE ad roll that is acceptable to run on all ratings of films.

Personally I would rather run the Screenvision stuff off of a DVD through a cheap video projector. It would look better anyway. [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-05-2009, 02:12 PM:

I think my theater would rather have me concentrate on Screenvision ads rather than booth maintenance. Oh well, I guess the oil in the projectors doesn't really need to be changed. Seriously, I am scheduled maybe two or three days a week maximum, and most of that time is spent building, breaking, changing ads/trailers and dealing with a crazy amount of Indian prints. Can't run ads if the projectors don't work. I guess they can hire some other guy at $85 an hour to fix the booth when it fails.

quote: Brad Miller
Personally I would rather run the Screenvision stuff off of a DVD through a cheap video projector. It would look better anyway.

No kidding. Hell, even a VHS tape recorded in EP would be preferable.

Posted by Joris Springer (Member # 4175) on 08-07-2009, 09:40 AM:

At the cinema where I work we used to have Screenvision on 35mm reels, always arrived on the morning we needed to put them in the shows (8 theaters, so an average of 14 shows and 1 operator and all had to be finished before the evening).
I am at one point glad we now have a new provider for commercials which are slides on a dvd. It looks more professional but personally I usually enjoyed the longer versions of commercials before the movie started.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 08-07-2009, 01:11 PM:

They come to me as spaghetti and bowls for the spaghetti.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-07-2009, 07:31 PM:

I have never heard of any theater getting them pre-assembled until now. What the hell?

Also, I can't believe Cinema Movie Grill or whatever actually uses Screenvision. I thought you guys did your own ads all compressed by Jeremy.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 08-07-2009, 07:48 PM:

They hate you most of all, that's why you don't them pre-assembled and then made into bowls like we do.

Really, though, it's like Brad said. They are put together SO badly that we have to take them apart and rebuild them anyway.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-07-2009, 11:58 PM:

But what is the factor that determines if you get them preassembled or not?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2009, 02:15 AM:

I don't understand why Screenvision has its d-cinema ads run in a format kinda sorta like 720p when the projectors could be showing a full 2048 X 1080 image. They have some really severe safe-action guidelines too. That's why I say their "digital" ads are kinda sorta 720p. The actual content is brought well inside that. Maybe Screenvision thinks the only people in the projection booth are retards and can't get the framing right.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 08-10-2009, 11:03 PM:

Speaking of framing, I was visiting the Carmike where I used to work yesterday and found their screenvision adds were terribly out of frame. Since the adds are in a different format and aspect ration, Christie uses a zoom lens to make up the difference, only they don't work quite right and like to stick halfway in/ halfway out, so when the movie comes on-screen it has a nice big line in it, so they just unhooked them until the tech can come fix them again.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-10-2009, 11:44 PM:

I use a TNET-300 video server to do digital ads on my screen.
It can play 1080 but I usually use 720 instead.

At 720, you can get a whole movie trailer in under 100 MB where it can be 150 MB or more for a 1080. It doesn't sound like much but, when you're talking about an 80 GB capacity on the unit's hard drive it can be significant. Further, it takes that much less time to upload and manage files on the server if they are smaller.

Our system upscales to 1080 anyway. To upscale from 720 to 1080, the difference is hardly visible with the house lights on.

If we make still slides with Photoshop/Illustrator or animations with Motion/Final Cut it's virtually impossible to tell the difference unless you really scrutinize it.

Customers waiting for a movie to start hardly pay attention to the ads, let alone scrutinize them for picture quality.

Besides, as the saying goes, "Today's newspapers line the bottoms of tomorrow's birdcages."

Ad material is expendable. It's better to save a little time, storage space and network bandwidth in exchange for a small drop in quality.

I don't know how it works on other systems but on ours, it's perfectly fine.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2009, 04:24 AM:

UPDATE:

Screenvision does not like this thread. Not one bit. They have been making waves. They have bullied the owners of my chain to try and get me to remove this thread. At least that's what I was told by corporate. Not gonna happen, Screenvision. Improve, or suck it! You want to ignore the problems rather than make any attempt to fix them. That is the sign of a poorly run company.

So don't use Screenvision as they will bully you and basically take over your theater.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-22-2009, 02:57 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Understandably there are, on rare occasions, complaints from customers that they did not pay for advertising when they purchased their ticket.

Rule of thumb -- for every person who takes the time and effort to make a complaint, there are at least 20 who have the same complaint but just don't voice it. Instead they just tuck that annoyance away in their mind under, "Why I hate going to the theatre and would much rather wait to see it on Netflix, or the RedBox or On Demand cable." Any exhibitor who doesn't appreciate the national perception that theatres are no longer the BEST place to watch movies, and doesn't do everything possible to eliminate all those factors that make patrons come to that frame of mind, will be shooting himself in the foot or worse.

quote: Aaron Mehocic
I'd like to think, however, that our ads are coordinated into specific sets based on rating and look as good as can be expected on the screen.

What's "as good as can be expected?" I expect picture and sound to look and sound as near perfection as I know the technology is capable of producing. Anything else is amateurish. I sat thru a crappy slew of dim, soft focus, ANNOYING ads before the last film I paid to see in a theatre and got the feeling that this was more a price I was being asked to pay than the cost of the ticket. Why should any patron be subjected to garbage and then assume they will want to return for more of it?

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Moreover, I'd also like to report that, although we are a part of the Screenvision network, we do not rely on the quarterly checks to get by.

THEN WHY DO IT? Why do something that degrades your presentation, annoys your customers and risks loosing them as loyal and frequent patrons if you can run the business without what you know is a real negative? It makes no sense, ESPECIALLY knowing how people have become more and more unhappy with the movie-going experience. It's not like it was years ago when the public could ONLY see movies in movie theatres and the exhibitor's only competition was another theatre and who could put on the best show. And back then, I NEVER heard anyone say they hated to go to the movie theatre. Hate going to the movies....no one would have believed someone who said such a thing back then -- we all LOVED going to the movies.

Today exhibitors are competing with a host of other ways people can see movies, yet today exhibitors seem to be LESS attentive to what makes their theatres a more inviting, more enticing environment to see films.

BTW, I say, if Coke wants to REALLY win my loyalty, I'd be allot more likely to remember their product if they gave me a free Coke at the concessions instead of pestering me in the theatre. That goes for every other advertiser. GIVE ME FREE STUFF. I promise I'll really be impressed....just let me sit in peace before the feature.

As for Suckvision honchos thinking they can make their shitty service better by stopping people from discussing it on this forum -- EAT ME.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-22-2009, 03:11 PM:

Hey Screenvision! Try to censor THIS!

http://www.jobschmob.com/showArticle.cgi?id=2100

quote:

Screenvision Is The Worst Company In The World!!

Posted on 07/19/2008 by LP JR Guy
Viewed: 1378 times

I worked for about eight months in advertising sales for Screenvision, selling onscreen theatre advertising. Warning: Onscreen advertising is one step above being a total scam and a completely ineffective means of spending your advertising dollars. The commercial spots are an insignificant 10 seconds, and are shown mostly in half-empty theatres, to kids with no buying power or people who regard onscreen ads as little more than an annoyance. They are totally ineffective. The company has something like an 8% renewal rate! That's abysmal. It also meant I was searching for new business all the time. Here are more gripes:

The company's compensation plan is a joke. It's really hard to make any money.

The company management is made up of idiots who are out of step and totally clueless as to the realities of the world we live in.

The regional VP was located in our office. I have known door knobs with more brains than this idiot.

My immediate supervisor was a sarcastic jerk who loved to throw around caustic remarks and insults.

I grew to despise the product and the company so much, I started having panic attacks. I felt I was compromising my personal integrity by selling this product.

Screenvision (or as I like to call them, "Screamvision"), has nothing but contempt for their customers once they sign the long-term contracts they demand. I saw too many examples of this.

They bust your stones constantly about weekly quotas (give me a break! A WEEKLY quota?), and the accounts payable people, particularly one girl in the Rochester office who handles the payment of legitmate bueiness expenses, was a complete pain in the rear.

Since I left Screamvision for a much better position, my blood pressure has gone down, my EKG is normal, and I'm done with the panic attacks.

DO NOT ever do business with Screenvision, and don't ever consider going to work for them! They're the Anti-Christ of the advertisnng world.

P.S. -- I found this by simply Googling the phrase, "Screenvision sucks."

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-22-2009, 06:14 PM:

I wonder how many theatres promote their advertisementless theatres and if it DRAWS patrons!

I personally have less of a problem with preshow ads than I do with the absolute abysmal quality in which they are shown...they should be as good as the feature in quality of image/sound...masked properly and so forth. If they are not worthy of that, they are not worthy of being shown.

Steve

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-22-2009, 06:47 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Screenvision does not like this thread. Not one bit. They have been making waves. They have bullied the owners of my chain to try and get me to remove this thread.

Yeah, well too bad this isn't their forum, huh? I know of some arrogant-ass theatre circuits who think they can do the same thing, whenever someone says something they don't like.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-22-2009, 09:04 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
What's "as good as can be expected?"

Well given what we have been discussing here and the condition in which the rolling stock comes (as evidenced by Emma's photo) "as good as can be expected" is totally in the hands of Screenvision. Obviously the screens are bright, focused, and clean because in the end our business is show business. Screenvision benefits (albeit by default) because myself and the other operators know what we are doing here.

However, what I really meant was that we take the time to carefully sort the ads, apply them to the proper rated feature(s) and build what we call an "ad-set". Everything is homogenous. Every G-rated feature has the same ads - in order - as any other G-rated feature we might be showing. Same goes for PG, PG-13, and R features as well. If we run short, we can sometimes borrow certain ads from other nearby theaters in our company who might have extra. Its a system that works in theory, as well as practicality.

quote: Frank Angel
THEN WHY DO IT? Why do something that degrades your presentation, annoys your customers and risks loosing them as loyal and frequent patrons if you can run the business without what you know is a real negative?

Bottom line: Because its my job. I don't like Screenvision anymore than any of the others who posted here either. But we do what we must do. I like to think that the extra revenue might permit an extra shift during the worst time of the year, or allow me to purchase some additional parts for the equipment that isn't always needed, but is sure nice to have around if something does break.

In the end its just business.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-24-2009, 09:41 AM:

Aaron, I wasn't suggesting that you personally shouldn't make the adverts look as good as they could -- in fact, your desire to put on a quality presentation is admirable and what it's all about -- I was questioning why the theatre owner does it, and for the reasons which I, and the other guys here, have pointed out.

No question, keep your passion for putting on the best show you can with what resourses they have given you.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-24-2009, 09:48 AM:

I think the pre-show advertising is like any other aspect of the moviegoing experience. It can either add to the experience, or it can detract from it.

While it's hard to make it a positive factor, it's also not that hard to keep it from becoming a large negative factor. It sounds like some here go through some effort to keep it from being the latter, while many advertising companies seem intent on doing otherwise.

One of the local theaters here in Milwaukee has such bad pre-show advertising, that it actually makes the theater look bad, IMO. The quality of the ads are OK (decently voiced, good photos of the business, etc.), but the quality of the projected image is so poor, that it appears that the theater can't figure out how to put an image on the screen. If I were brand new to the theater, I'd be worried about their ability to show the actual feature with any quality.

The video appears to be VHS quality, which is odd, since I would think it would cost nearly as much to edit these ads in HD as in SD, and HD-capable projectors can't be that hard to find or more expensive than SD-only ones.

Odd thing is, the theater management recognizes how poor it is, but they don't see it as a problem. It's managed by the ad company and maintained by the ad company, and they don't think it reflects poorly on the theater. I think they're wrong, but it's their theater, so if they want something that sucks showing in their theater, that's their right!

Relevant advertising can be OK, and I don't think people object to seeing ads before the show, as long as they're not bothersome. They need to be decent quality, not be too loud to inhibit conversation before the show, and they should not delay the actual showtime by more than a few minutes (if any at all).

Interspersing ads with factoids, trivia questions, and other non-ads would help keep it from feeling like a blatant exploitation of a captive audience, and adding something special, like a customized policy trailer or at least a final segment that says "And now... on with the show!" and shows animated curtains opening or something would be a touch of class that I know would never happen in most theaters but would be a distinctive touch that may resonate with customers.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-24-2009, 09:56 AM:

As much as I dislike cinema advertising, I can actually deal with slides or the video equivalent (still images projected without sound and with houselights up). It is not overly obnoxious and does not interfere with the exhibitor's ability to play appropriate non-sync music or the patrons' ability to converse quietly among themselves. On the other hand, this type of advertising is probably not terribly effective.

Animated video ads, ads with sound, and film ads are all completely objectionable and not appropriate.

Exception: theatre/movie related advertising (popcorn, gift certificates, trailers) are expected and appropriate, and few customers would begrudge a theatre that tried to promote its on product.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-24-2009, 11:27 AM:

Our preshow ads are done by Unique Screen Media (Access IT), and I have been very happy with the quality. They supply the projectors and update the DVD's we use every 3 or 4 weeks. When done right like this, preshow ads definately add to the movie experience. We regularly get complaits asking to turn up the sound so they can hear the preshow (and I think sometimes to drown out another noisy patron in the audience). The Screenvision stuff we use is rolling stock, and definately detracts from our presentation because of the quality of the stock as mentioned previously.

I say if Screenvision is upset about this thread, they post a rep here, and show their intent on improving their on screen image. Take these criticisms and build a better business because of them. There are many people here who represent their companies in an effort to improve their business. Welcome to the 21st century.

Posted by Jeremy Spracklen (Member # 18) on 08-24-2009, 02:19 PM:

I don't want to say that Screenvision is a scam on the theaters, but I do believe that they intentionally create situations where they can declare the exhibitor "non-compliant" and refuse to pay. These include:

1. Shorting the theaters an appropriate number of ad rolls for every rating and format. They already look ahead at release schedules for the month for rating and formats (which is proven by the fact that we do not receive any G-Rated Scope rolls if we don't have any G-Rated Scope movies that month), but we always manage to be short appropriate ads. When we get the final bookings and find out picture formats for the week, we send the obligatory email to their service, but it is impossible for them to get the commercials to us in time for the weekend (in reality, they have yet to ever fill a request for more ads, but I was trying to give them a chance). But, since we aren't in full compliance, they can refuse payment.

2. This one is just downright shady - They send the ads in a fedex box and ask the theaters to return the rolls in the same box. The problem is that the return label that they enclose is a UPS airbill. This combination just confuses the hell out of everyone. We always give the return box to the managers and they try to give it to the FEDEX driver who refuses it, because of the UPS airbill, and then they try to give it to the UPS guy who in turn refuses it because...well, because it is a fedex box. Once again, they have put in a rule that if you don't return the old ads within a certain window, they can refuse payment.

My question to this is...why? Do they reuse the ads? Why are they spending so much money getting them shipped back (our last shipment was 20 4-minute rolls) when it seems that the only purpose in doing so is to artificially create a reason NOT to pay people.

These issues are just on top of everything else that has been said. The quality is just horrible, with theaters, customers and even advertisers having to suffer. And don't even get me started about how they make conventional trailer change-out processes impossible by using film that has the consistency of a bowl of cereal that has been left in the sink for a week without being rinsed.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-24-2009, 03:06 PM:

Tell me about it! Even when I am just doing a single, innocent trailer change, all of the Screenvision ads make it nearly impossible to push the preceding film out of the way so I can get to the splice in the trailers where I need to remove it. They might as well make their ads out of cement.

If Screenvision is using such cheap, tacky film stock and making all sorts of excuses to come up with "non-compliance" situations so that they don't have to pay, they must be in a very dire financial situation. Obviously they are trying to spend as little as possible by fair means and perhaps even foul. Of course the actual advertiser still likely has to pay Screenvision 100% even if they didn't send out enough ads to theaters. Perhaps they could go out of business at any given moment. We can only hope. All the more reason NOT to use or advertise with Screenvision.

We need to DIGG this thread. I want advertisers to see it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-24-2009, 03:32 PM:

When I last worked with doing 35mm ads, the one time we had actually received extra for the format we'd been shorted on (which required leaving a voicemail request every day), they arrived 2 or 3 days after we'd already received a new run of ads.

Posted by Jeremy Spracklen (Member # 18) on 08-24-2009, 05:07 PM:

Joe is right. The advertisers do need to know about what goes on as they are the only ones that could actually put a stop to it. I'm sure that they would also like to know that we routinely remove ads that we don't feel are appropriate for our audiences WITH SCREENVISION'S APPROVAL. Do you think that they go back to those advertisers and tell them that the ad isn't being played on as many screens as they thought? Nope.

And Chris, we have the same thing. The ads that we request will come in a couple of weeks after the flight is over (one time, we had them come in the day after). That way, they can say that they fulfilled the request while at the same time making sure that we are non-complaint.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-24-2009, 09:42 PM:

Wait a second...
Isn't it MY doddgamm screen? (The theater owner.) Am I not renting MY screen to them? Basically that makes them a broker for selling ads. Right?

What's with all this non-compliance and withholding payment bullshit? If I put one of their ads on my screen... even just one... they are paying me! If they don't, they can come get their fucking projectors and take them off my property.

They'll find them neatly stacked on the sidewalk in front of the theater doors.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-25-2009, 02:32 AM:

We got around the whole thing of dealing with hoping that the ads would arrive by simply throwing in lens changes. So the ads ran in one format then there'd be a lens change to play the trailers/feature. Then when we'd lose a movie, the set of ads removed would be moved to another print so that we could get rid of the lens change.