quote:

---

From my understanding these commercials you speak of are actually "pre-shows", and should start earlier so that the feature film can be viewed at scheduled show times.

---

The commercials that are being spoken of are little different (if at all) from the spots that those sponsors are currently running on TV. The theatre is compensated for running those commercials... as they are compensated (by you) for playing the movie.

As for your understanding of when a feature should start: It has been standard practice as long as I can remember (45+years) to add trailers to a show, giving theatres an opportunity to generate interest in upcoming releases. In recent years, the studios have added trailers to the front of the print themselves, leading to a question whether those trailers constitute a part of the feature and making the theatre contractually obligated to play them (like most of them care).

In any case, the trailers are customarily part of the show, and the advertised start time (at least in the US) has always been for the beginning of that "show".

Unfortunately, some chains, if not the sponsors as well, would have you believe that the additional paid product advertising should now be considered part of that "show" that they hope you'll show up early enough... and pay to watch.

Strictly on principal, the whole concept sucks. At least Regal has lowered the suck factor somewhat by placing their commercials before the advertised start time.

Oh... and with all due respect to Arbitron... I've been in and around radio long enough to know you can take a survey and make it say just about anything you want. If you listen long enough, you'll find out that just about every station in Seattle is "NUMBER ONE!" .......... at something.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-06-2003, 11:16 AM:
 
The forms I fill out for Regal when I do advertising checks suggest that, as someone else pointed out, The 2wenty pre-show stuff is supposed to end, and the trailers begin, at the advertised showtime. This seems reasonable to me. However on the last couple checks I did, they've been starting the pre-show stuff at the advertised showtime, not before (the Regal theatre here is not on The 2wenty though, just normal rolling stock).
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-07-2003, 05:31 PM:
 
My understanding is that the Rolling Stock HAS to start at the advertise start of the movie. The advertisers do not want to pay to have their commercials shown on a near empty screen. Basically as long as the theater companies are promising the advertisers a "capative audience" in order to get those advertising dollars, this will continue to be the case.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-07-2003, 05:52 PM:
 
/RANT ON/
We just had a checker report in which the checker stated "The movie started 15 minutes late'. What he actually was saying was that the ACTUAL film started 15 minutes after the ads AND trailers. With the media bombarding these articles across the United States more and more people are complaining about the ads before the film. I have been doing this for a long time and we have ALWAYS run ads before the show. I will admit that some theatre companies have gotten out of hand with the amount of ads the are putting on. However:

You ever notice that people only complain when they read about it in the paper and then say "oh yeah - I am going to complain about that too". Everyone immediately forgets that we have been doing the same thing for years and only till there is an article about it in the paper - do they wake up and realize it is soemthing they don't like.

Remember the big popcorn oil scare about ten years ago? "Eating a bag of popcorn at your local theatre is the same as having two steak dinners". Then everyone freaked out and we had to do things like use nasty peanut oil to cook the popcorn in. Well, most patrons prefer coconut oil - the same oil that will 'give you a heart attack in a minute'. Although now - studies find it may not be that bad.

Boy, I hate the media.
/RANT OFF/
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-07-2003, 11:42 PM:
 
When advertisements (as opposed to trailers ) first started appearing some years ago, NYC movie audiences frequently booed (not that there was anyone from management listening.)

But more recently, I never hear any negative reaction. I think people now expect to be bombarded by advertising everywhere and accept it, but in a movie theater situation, ignore it as much as they can and continue talking through the ads.

Most ads that I've seen were either shot on video or on 16mm and generally look and sound like crap in a theater.

I was in the AMC Empire yesterday and aside from the video projector ads, there was no screen advertising aside from the trailers.

Theatres that I attend in NYC play the slide show or video ads preshow and start the trailers within a few minutes of the advertised showtime.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-08-2003, 12:41 PM:
 
People pay for satellite and cable TV, but you don't hear a big wail over advertising there.

They pay huge money for concerts and sports games which feature advertising "in your face" throughout the event!

When we start interrupting movies in the middle for a commercial break, THEN maybe there will be something to complain about. (Although a "bathroom break" would be nice on some of these longer movies!)
 

---

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 08-09-2003, 07:44 AM:
 
At our theater we put only one trailer on the feature. Most films now have at least one attached trailer. Our customers know that they can come in for a 7PM show and see the opening title around 7:05. We don't make them sit through 20 mins of trailers. New customers always thank us for that!
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-09-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
"People pay for satellite and cable TV, but you don't hear a big wail over advertising there."

I did- I remember the first time I got to watch MTV and was shocked to see them go to a commercial break. I've never understood why people pay for cable when they show just as many commercials, if not more than regular TV, and is the main reason why I've never subscribed to cable. (I've always thought the mini-satellite dishes were ridiculous too, as you have to pay to 'unlock' the channels that are advertiser-supported- those should be available free to anyone who has a receiver set up, and charged only for movie channels and pay-per-view.)
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-09-2003, 05:57 PM:
 
Cable TV companies do not *originate* any advertiser-paid programming, and thus do not receive any of the advertising revenue. They do however put up satellite dishes, receivers, control centers, and lay hundreds of miles of cable. Shouldn't they get paid for that, even if "that" is bringing you 102 channels of nothing? Same principle applies to satellite companies -- they don't originate any programming, but they have enormous costs bringing programming to viewers.
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 08-09-2003, 06:34 PM:
 

quote:

---

Cable TV companies do not *originate* any advertiser-paid programming, and thus do not receive any of the advertising revenue.

---

In fact, cable companies do sell ad space on their cable channels. For example, Comcast here in Knoxville sells local advertising on channels like MTV. Adelphia and TCI did the same thing down in Miami when I lived down there. They mske money from the ads and the subscriptions.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-09-2003, 10:51 PM:
 
I stand corrected.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-11-2003, 12:54 AM:
 
Local ad insertion sales & tech is what staffs your local cable company!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-11-2003, 02:35 AM:
 
I recently watched the matrix reloaded on Imax and the only thing on screen before were some light patterns and a Cinemark Imax logo. There was about a 30 second speech about how great Imax is and then the WB logo came up.

That's how it should be, in my opinion.

However, preshow advertising generates a lot of revenue for the theatre and is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Personally, I wish the credits were at the beginning and the trailers were at the end of the show like it was in the old days. Although, credits are more detailed now and that would be pretty annoying.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-11-2003, 03:55 AM:
 
not all theaters play commercials. the big chains do, and that's mostly all there is outside big population centers. but around here i can support my 500+ movie a year habit without subjecting myself to commercials. frankly, i'll sacrifice a little on the presentation side to avoid them (and to see limited release films). why? all that preshow bullshit will louse up my disposition far more than an opaque splice or a little dirt on a print. [note: i don't endorse or traffic in opaque splices or dirt, myself] i just have no patience for that corporate money-grubbing crap.

carl
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-11-2003, 11:44 AM:
 

quote:

---

In fact, cable companies do sell ad space on their cable channels. For example, Comcast here in Knoxville sells local advertising on channels like MTV...

---

Charter (soon to be formerly Paul Allen's group) does it on pretty much all their channels. Echostar also does on their Dish Network. In the case of the cable companies, it opened up a good medium for smaller local businesses that can't afford the high, regionally (and agency)-based rates that many "local" channels (if available) charge.
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 08-11-2003, 08:22 PM:
 
Sadly many of our theatres do run ads prior to advertised show time. Many poeple hate this and they do usually suck. My complex does not do this out of sheer luck that not enough businesses wanted to advertise. As much as we hate it, where else can our company generate $80,000 with no cost to us. That's what I was told when I asked why we do it through all the complaints. If we didn't pay through the nose for our prints, this may not be necessary. Now that it's started, it will never stop. People will just get used to it, as they did with cable. You can get used to a turd in your hat if you wear it long enough. Quote from my grandfather.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 09-26-2003, 06:39 PM:
 
Once again some big-city snob bitches about rolling stock adverts in front of the feature. This time the story (San Fran. Chronicle) made The Obscure Store with the link "Writer: It's outrageous to spend $9.50 for a movie and then have to watch ads".

I will say that rolling stock gives me a hint on the political slant of TV. The AMC preshow in August included an ad for "Threat Matrix", a TV series that began this month. "Threat Matrix" genuflects before the CIA (covert ops are cool) and the Dept. of Homeland Security (police state is cool).

Another excellent reason why I got rid of my TV 5 years ago!
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-26-2003, 08:21 PM:
 
With our company it is required that the ads start before the advertised start times. If you have three minutes of ads and the advertised time is 7:45 the projector is to start at 7:42.

You know if advertisers really wanted to be anal about their ads they would push to have them inserted between reels.
 

---

Posted by Adam Budweg (Member # 1901) on 09-27-2003, 03:36 AM:
 
Adds are annoying. Personly i never had to include them inot a show at any of the theaters i've ever worked at. but being an avid movie goer i i frown upon the fact that the adds are everywhere and in growing numbers. it is true that some of the smaller theaters do not run adds, or a slide projector at most, but it is also a fact that the smaller theaters do not recieve all of the the prints that might come out that week. i dont mind paying the $8 to go see a movie at teh local regal because my theater doesnt have the movie. I dont mind walking through the lobby and watching the plasma screen comercials for network television. i dont mind the parafanela taht the employees are forced to wear. i dont even mind the previews before the movie. but they have gone to far when i sit down in my seat take a sip of my drink waiting to see whats coming out this winter and i see a malt liquor commercial, followed by a car commercial, followed by a fandango comercial ( I dont see y they need the fandango commercial teh fact taht i am in the theater tells them that i dont mind buying my ticket from an actual human being ). its outragous.

ive also heard many mentions of thse being compared to TV adds. but the only common link between movie ads and TV adds is that they are both adds and nothing more. when im watching TV i can just turn the station. and if i feel like it i can turn it off. but i pay my 8 bucks and i have to sit there or end up sitting in teh isle cause i left my seat during the adds. and i dont think they would be to fond of my walking up to the booth and cutting the adds out. i dont even think they would like it if i wandered around and caught bits and pieces of other movies while the adds were playing.

Well thats waht i think
and im going to bed now
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-27-2003, 03:41 AM:
 
charles,

do you have some sort of love affair with commercials? maybe most people are indifferent to them, but we should all be trying to raise the bar, not lower it. i assure you the majority of moviegoers don't consciously care about scratches and dirt, and to them we may all be "big city snobs" for taking pains not to introduce them. but that is what we do; we try to maintain standards of excellence. throwing crass, shoddily produced crap on the screen runs counter to that (that goes for a lot of trailers and "policy" snipes too), and i applaud those who raise a stink about it.

the majority of films i see have no trailers whatsoever before them, and i like it that way. just because most country bumpkins are inured to them doesn't mean.... oh my, did i just write "country bumpkins"? i must be some kind of big-city snob.

carl
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-27-2003, 12:48 PM:
 
Kind of strange how some commercials derail in the projector head......
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 09-27-2003, 06:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

they have gone to far when i sit down in my seat take a sip of my drink waiting to see whats coming out this winter and i see a malt liquor commercial, followed by a car commercial, followed by a fandango comercial

---

If you do not like the commercials at Regal, do not go early to the movie. The pre-show ends at the advertised start time.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-27-2003, 08:49 PM:
 
I am going to counter here and propose more commercials!

The longer the pre-show, the more time people have time to get thier wiggles out and thier talking out so they shut the hell up more, or at least I don't feel bad for threatening to cut off one of thier body parts and feeding it to my cats.

Dave
 

---

Posted by Adam Budweg (Member # 1901) on 09-28-2003, 03:01 AM:
 
no they dont always end at the start time. true the regal near me has just adopted the digital add system that ends at the start time, but what i am refering to is physical film taht passes through teh projector. and if u decide to show up 10 min late just to miss teh adds good luck finding a seat. the regal near me has only had that system for about a month. and i dont think id be a fool to say that there are others out there that dont even have it yet. they dont start the movie early just because there are adds they start it ontime so u see the adds or get stuck with the seat taht has teh handrail blocking teh bottom lefthand corner of the screen
 

---

Posted by Pete Wolla (Member # 1581) on 09-28-2003, 08:41 AM:
 
i'm with paul on this one
 

---