This is topic Properly Staffing A Theater in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000883
Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 08-12-2003, 01:01 PM:
 
I know that with each post I write, I continue to beat an already very, very dead horse, but I need to get this off my chest. First, how can a twelve screen theatre operate with three employees? That is exactly what we are going to be asked to do to cut payroll. A manager will cashier, and we will have a booth person and a concessionist. You can run a six-plex like that but not a twelve. Why would you WANT to run a twelve like that? What if the manager has a booth emergency and needs to leave cashier? A million things could happen and the manager will be tied down to a position, and THAT, my friends, is BAD, BAD, BAD! Attendance will be low with schools back in session, but come on! Even if we only do 125-150 people on weekdays, we still need to be properly staffed.

You know, I understand that payroll is a very important concern, but I'm learning first hand that there is a fine line between staffing the way a company wants you to staff and maintaining a proper level of customer service. But, it's all about money. Screw the customer service! You can just take it forgranted that they're going to come in no matter what! That's a BAD practice. When you don't properly staff you sacrifice cleanliness, you have bigger lines, you have angry customers...and THEN, unbelievably, you get in trouble from your home office because you're implementing the exact guidelines THEY put in place! You're supposed to be able to do it ALL and SCREW YOU if you can't!

It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out in fist-fulls.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-12-2003, 01:36 PM:
 
Wow, the're keeping the projectionist? That's a switch; usually he's the first to go.

Is you theater company low on cash? Since payroll is among the biggest expenses, it is usually where the bean counters cut first. ("Ya just press the button; how hard can it be?!") I guess if it's a choice between going out of biz, or reducing staff, there's only one choice......

I believe many companies actually research to find what is the minimum level of customer service before customers will no longer return. That becomes their standard level of service.

Three people run a 12-plex? Well, with the right people, it could probably work fairly well. But, those kinds of people are hard to find, since anyone with that much drive could probably earn more money from another industry.
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-12-2003, 01:40 PM:
 
I assume you mean 3 people at any one time, not three people in total.
 
Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 08-12-2003, 02:10 PM:
 
I used to work an entire round at a 7 screen (then an 8 screen for a brief period) by myself... but then both were dollar houses and only about 40 people would show up all evening. (Just before each of them closed).

I would thread up the projectors, set up the concession and walk the entire theater before I openned the doors. Then, I would quickly go up to the booth and start the movie I needed and go back downstairs to cover the concession and box after the doors were open (if anybody showed up for it).

Usually, very few people made it to the first show since it was around 5:00. An employee would come in around 7:00 to run the concession and/or sell tickets for the next 2 rounds.

It was not that bad as long as there was no problem in the booth.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-12-2003, 02:30 PM:
 
I have also had the pleasure of running a seven screen theater by myself for most of the day 11:00am - 4:00pm (that was my GM's way of saving payroll, which was BTW against company policy). The trick was to get in really early and set everything up (pre-threading projectors, popping popcorn, etc.) I just had to wait on customers then run up stairs to start movies rinse and repeat. Of course one of the big downsides was that I had to leave cash drawers unattended for lengths of time and of course the inevitable booth problems but that was just the way it was.
 
Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 08-12-2003, 04:31 PM:
 
I don't think 3-4 employees on during a shift (especially during a weekday afternoon when school is in session) is unreasonable.

I've done it before with a 16plex. 1 person in the booth, 1 cashier, 1 vendor, and the manager floating and doing other things as needed (Ushing, helping out in vending if needed, and other work).

You just need to plan ahead, and have qualified and experienced line staff on. (Plus, during the week, we have a box office set up in the vending stand for the afternoons.)
 
Posted by Kelly Skaggs (Member # 1780) on 08-12-2003, 05:02 PM:
 
I run the booth (for the next and my last week) at the theater Brent is talking about. Something that needs to be mentioned is the box office has its own separate lobby in the front, of the main lobby. Which makes it more cut off from the concession stand and the access to the booth. Having the manager run the box office or the concession stand at this poorly designed theater is asinine.
 
Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 08-12-2003, 05:51 PM:
 
Is there a way to move the box office to the vending stand (either through the OS of the software your theatre uses, or physically moving a station) to allow for better "access" during these slow periods when you are required to reduce staff to these levels?

If so, that would be a solution to help reduce the "isolation" of the separate box office.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-12-2003, 06:39 PM:
 
Selling tickets at the concession stand is a good idea for slow periods, although it probably reduces concession sales, too, particularly if there is a line.

I haven't had much experience with staffing a multiplex, but I do think that single-screen houses need at least three employees (box, concession, projectionist) during "normal" periods, and 4-5 on busy weekend evenings (probably add one in concession and a general manager type to rip tickets and do other jobs as needed).

I'm guessing that a 12-plex with a separate box office and concession stand could probably do fairly well with five employees on slow nights (1-box office, 2-concession, 1-manager, and 1-projectionist), with substantially more on busy nights.

I've heard of 10-plexes which run with one (yes, one) employee during slow weekday afternoons, which sounds completely insane to me. I ran a single by myself one night (one employee called in sick; the other just didn't show up) once and told the owners that I would quit before doing that again.
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-12-2003, 06:59 PM:
 
I have spent years operating 4 to 8 screens all on my lonesome, and not have it be a very stressing experience. Just stay busy all the time, bite your tounge, be glad you have a job in this day and age, especially in the movie theater business, and be happy dammit!

Unless you have a mysteriously rich benefactor, you will have to roll up your sleeves and actually do some work. We can't all work for Century Theaters, but it would be nice if we did.

Dave
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-12-2003, 09:27 PM:
 
I would not want to attend a showing at a twelve-plex with only three members of staff on duty, because of my fear of being trapped in case of fire, civil disorder or natural catastrophe.

[Actually I would not attend a twelve-plex period. I have worked projection at a twelve-plex even when it went to fourteen screens, but it had a whole army of ushers, concessionists and security officers in addition to its managers and projectionists. Still, I would not go there to see a movie.]

Are there no public safety standards or laws governing operating a place of public accommodation where this theatre is located? I believe in any civilized location such a theatre should be forced to comply with safety standards or lose its license and be shut down.
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-13-2003, 12:20 AM:
 
I run a 14 with 2 people on staff ... myself and one other ... I run booth and cleans auditoriums, the other sells tickets & concessions ... and we do your pre-decribed 125-150/day. Ask yourself this question ... if I added two employees, will I end up paying two people to stand around and do nothing? With those attendance numbers, most likely the answer is yes, assuming you have a well-spaced show schedule and the 7's aren't bunched into a 15-30 minute time period. Cause even with just 2, on those numbers ... I never feel rushed
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-13-2003, 12:43 AM:
 
In the past during school we would have two for concession, one for box, one person tearing tickets, one person cleaning all 30 theatres, two people in booth, a manger and an asst manager.

If needed, the ticket drop person would be cut and then a concessionist.

This is just my way of thinking here, but it would seem to me that paying an extra $25 a day for another cashier would not be that big of a loss. The way I see it, a lot of people see the lines and dont feel like waiting and either go into their movie or just dont buy a ticket.

I have driven up to theatres many times and seen long lines at the box office and not wanted to wait for an hour in the cold/heat/rain and just went home.
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-13-2003, 02:24 AM:
 
Hmmmmmmmm.... I may be doing something wrong here. From what I'm reading, we're seriously overstaffed, and this must be fixed immediately.

We rarely have less than 3 people in our 4-plex.... 2 by closing time, or if it's just plain dead during the week. On weekends (when we have decent shows) our busy shifts might run as high as 5 (including the Manager). We actually put 2 people behind the counter... 3, if you count the boxoffice person, who can help where needed... maybe even 4.... wow...the Manager might be making popcorn! Personally, I don't like to see people waiting in line... especially since we tend to run a fairly tight schedule.

Some of you must have incredibly well-designed facilities to be able to run with so few. If we had only one person, someone(s) would walk out of the building with the whole concession stand while the staff member was in the booth.

Our auditoriums run from 200 to 500 seats. Even on mediocre days it takes a while to clean them decently... which makes me wonder how one person could manage 30 auditoriums.

I must be leaving too much of my money for the staff & not taking enough home for me!....... [Confused]
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-13-2003, 02:41 AM:
 
Our houses are between 93 seats and 595 seats and usually when there is one person there only the big houses get cleaned.

When I was downstairs and I had to do it, I couldnt get every piece of popcorn, but I had enough time to go through and at least get the bags and cups and what-not.

You can usually find the ushers whatching a movie instead of cleaning, so why pay more people to not do anything. Of course it's not my call to make.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-13-2003, 03:16 AM:
 
let's be generous (to the staff) and say that adding an employee per shift costs $40. if by adding that one employee you can get 5 more people to see a movie that shift (and come back another day, because they didn't have to wait as long in line or feel slighted by harried workers), then it's worth it. and that's only from pure bottom-line thinking. if excellence is your objective, then the bottom line will follow. well, i like to think so anyways.

carl
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-13-2003, 09:24 AM:
 
When I worked for Pacific Theatres at their Picwood Theatre in West Los Angeles. This was a single screen, 950 seat theatre.
During the engagement of "ET" and a few other engagements we would staff the theatre with as many as 16 staff, 2 assts., 1 manager and a projectionist during a shift.
The brakedown for the weekend/weekday/slow staffing was:
For Busy Weekends the staff was 20 people.
For Weekdays and special screenings the staff was 10 people.
For Slow periods of time during the week the staff was 5 people.
The Manager and Asst's worked a 5 day week.
The Parking Lot person was to watch and make sure no one parked in the wrong spaces that belonged to the neighboring businesses.
At the time Pacific Theatres wanted to staff the theatre this way. Pacific Theatres staffed the Cinerama Dome, Hollywood Pacific the same way during this era. For a single screen this will never happen again. Pacfic Theatres People Pleasing People [thumbsup]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-13-2003, 09:41 AM:
 
quote:
People Pleasing People [thumbsup]
Something too often forgotten in some of today's theatres. [Frown]

Added to "Film Done Right", a winning combination. [Smile]
 
Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 08-13-2003, 10:15 AM:
 
It looks as though I am over staffing my theatre as well. But I think not. I am a single screen and I usually use 5 people on weekends all year round, 4 people weekdays during the summer or over any school holiday periods, and 3 people during weekdays during the school periods. My weekend staff is make up of a cashier, ticket taker, two concession salespeople, and myself as manager/projectionist. On the weekdays I take tickets myself as well, amd during the school season on weeknights there is only 1 person in the concession stand. I can't see how I could do with less. Even on the slow weeknights during the school year I usually get between 50 and 100 people per show, and being a single they are all coming in at the same time. On weekends 150 to 300 per show is to be expected and sometimes more, and I can't imagine serving those people with less of a staff. It gets backed up at the concession stand now as it is.

I just find it difficult to comprehend that a large multiplex would ever run with less then 5 people.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-13-2003, 10:22 AM:
 
The staffs at the Cinerama Dome and Hollywood Pacific Theatres had great loyal staffs. Some of them worked at those theatres for over 5 years and longer. When I was assigned to the Hollywood Pacific during it's last year. I watched the staff all around the theatre, helping patrons. This was Theatre Done Right [thumbsup] . They were older staff members, but they gave better service then the kids working over at the Chinese Theatre down the street and other first run houses in the area. When I was just a patron, I enjoyed going to the Hollywood Pacific and the Dome. Because I knew I was going to get GOOD SERVICE and a GOOD SHOW. OK , the Hollywood Pacific was not the best theatre on Hollywood Blvd.. But during its day it was a Good showcase house. I hate going to the movies here in NYC, because the services SUCKS at many of the theatres.

Remember GOOD SERVICE, repeat business [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Tim Turner (Member # 1109) on 08-13-2003, 10:40 AM:
 
I remember when I worked for another company, there was about a month where payroll was cut down, and only 3 people were scheduled to run the 10 screen theater. 2 managers and 1 projectionist only. 1 Manager was in the box office and the other was in concessions, and the projectionist (I) ran the booth and cleaned theaters and bathrooms. As well as sometimes run for the cashier in concessions, or briefly work in the box office if the manager in there needed to take a phone call.

I was happy that that I was at least getting hours in the week, and I went through all that without complaints.

And if you are going have a staff as small as that, thats the kind of people you need. People who don't complain, they know things need to be done and understand the circumtances, and just do the work the best way they can. But it can be done!

Though I don't know what good it would do, since that company closed done anyway. [Roll Eyes]

The booth manager once told me he had a similar experience at another theater. In his case, it was just the GM and himself!

And the place still closed!
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-13-2003, 10:59 AM:
 
quote:
The booth manager once told me he had a similar experience at another theater. In his case, it was just the GM and himself!

And the place still closed!
I think there is a lesson to be learned there. Yes, theatres need to control costs, including payroll. But not at the expense of being able to attract and keep good employees who provide the service and presentation quality the audience expects and DESERVES.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-13-2003, 11:52 AM:
 
I remember visiting an old theatre once, I think it was what was the 'Astoria', now the 'Academy', a rock music venue, in Brixton. It was built mainly for film, but with some live shows. In an office there were some old ledgers, and the staffing in those dats, late '20s-early '30s, was incredible. There were managers, projectionists, electricians, box office people, catering staff, stokers, seamstresses, page boys cleaners, stage door keeper, lamp operators, carpenters, the list went on and on, I think there were over a hunderd people on the staff. an any one time there were always at least two projectionists plus a rewind boy on duty.
 
Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 08-13-2003, 01:19 PM:
 
I run minimum 3 staff in my 5 screen (including myself). Weekends I run about 4-5. 2-3 concession, 1 box, 1 projection. Really slow times I probably could run with 2 barring any problems, but I will not sacrifice customer service EVER! It's not that expensive to have a third person just to run a smooth night.

When things go well nobody notices, when things go wrong everyone does. It's not worth the risk.
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-13-2003, 02:34 PM:
 
Today my 5-plex is being run with 3 people. Me as manager/operator, Elizabeth in box and Pat in concessions.

I believe during the slow period the 12-plex I worked at started with 5-poeple in the morning. 1-box, 1-ticket taker/usher, 1-concessions, 1-manager & 1-projectionist.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 08-13-2003, 05:20 PM:
 
Customer service and safety are the two most important things that I consider. (There are SOOO many things that fall in those two catagories).

Bottom line: You should be able to run a sucessful operation if everything is perfectly balanced. There are ways to have happy employees work for you (for a decent wage)and not blow the payroll budget for the week (or month).

A Movie theatre is either SUCESSFUL or UNSUCESSFUL - PERIOD. I can walk into ANY theatre across the country and tell right away whether the theatre is a viable business in that community. The biggest problem is - these superhuge theatre corporations can operate unsuccessful theatres with unhappy employees for LONG periods of time - before they close them and let all those people go. It is truly sad.....
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-14-2003, 04:47 AM:
 
As a strict moviegoer who has never managed a theater, i could be wrong in my assumptions. But the way I see it, one of the biggest obstacles to putting your stamp on the business, and be willing to spend a little more money in creating an environment that could entice more moviegoers,either through better projection, customer service, or whatever, is the attitude of distributors and studios to maximize their short term profit at the expense of any long term benefits.

Instead of taking tips from the NFL, and try to partner with the theaters in bringing more patrons to the theaters, they just seem obsessed with their cut of the grosses. I read about how distributors take a high percentage of the net (I am guessing they give theaters some kind of allowance for expenses). But i doubt this allowance differs much from a super crappy theater to a great theater. The way i see it distributors and studios act more like MLB and the NHL than the NFL where everyone profits.
It doesn't seem to bother them that their future earnings are jeapordized whenever a theater offers the moviegoers a substandard experience compared to ther pique at a theater that doesn't drive people to DVD rentals but offers a few more free passes. The NHL nearly killed itself in the 80s when it sold the TV rights to a small time cable network because ESPN probably didn't offer as much.

As far as staffing, maybe self serve credit card ticketselling will become as common as credit card gas purchases at the gas stations. Maybe more concessions could be placed in vending machines to help out during overcrowded times. Maybe concessions could also be segregated in big multiplexes by cash and credit limiting the theft worries only at the cash counters.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-15-2003, 08:34 AM:
 
Gerard makes a good point about customer safety. Also important is the safety of the employees; in a small-town theatre in a safe area, it's probably OK to have only one person in the lobby after the late show starts, but in larger areas where crime rates are higher (and cash on hand is probably greater), I can't imagine having fewer than two employees in the lobby/ticket booth area at all times. In the event of a problem (technical or otherwise), it's important to have one person (manager or assistant) to go into the auditorium and explain the situation to the customers, while leaving someone else in the lobby.

Communication is also important--the box office, concession stand, manager's office, and booth should all have phones, walkie talkies, buzzers, or some other means of communication in the event of a problem. Even in smaller theatres, I think it's important to have a phone in the booth so that the projectionist can call for help if there are problems in the public areas of the building.
 
Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 08-15-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
To put my situation in perspective, consider the fact that the general manager and two janitors are considered a payroll expense rather than an operating expense. Furthermore, consider the fact that for several weekends in a row, our attendance varied between 4000 and 7000 and our payroll went as low as 3.8% and never higher than 5%. Trust me, our managers know what work is, and I'll happily put our work ethic up against any theater staff in this country. But when you run a payroll that low, you are only hurting the company in the long run. It is detrimental in the sense that when you make cuts, you are truly cutting your ability to please the customers. PERIOD. That should be your number one concern, shouldn't it? ESPECIALLY given that we are in a competitive market where we are splitting product!! If you have three concessionists (including a manager) for a 450 person walk-in, something is wrong. You save payroll, but do you honestly think people are going to stand in line and wait for any longer than ten minutes or so? So those people get angry and don't buy and you lose sales. And guess what? That off-sets what you saved on payroll because now your per cap is significantly lower...not to mention the fact that your building cannot possibly be as clean as it should be.

I understand that certain managers have bonuses that are contingent upon low payroll, and all they care about is their money. Do you think they really care about customers? Some do, most don't. But if you don't have happy customers, you eventually won't have business. You'll have even more people who will wait for the movies to hit DVD.

I'm all for keeping costs low, but use some common sense.
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-15-2003, 10:27 PM:
 
Brent:

You just changed situations. First, you were talking about 125-150 people for 3 rounds of shows (at most a 50-person walk-in). Now, you're talking about a 450-person walk-in w/ 3 concessionists. Also, I hate the term "walk-in" because my round is spread from 7:00 - 8:35 ... where some people have their round scheduled from 7:00 - 7:15, thereby having to serve more people in less time. I prefer to look at payroll on a CPC (cost per customer) basis, where your payroll is divided by your attendance (not including salaried employees/janitors). Using the CPC ... you can see how the increased payroll affects the Per Capita concession income, and correlate the two.
 
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 08-16-2003, 01:34 AM:
 
Mike I find it is more helpful to look at payroll from an hours per patran perspective due to the fact that some employees may be making a higher rate than others.
 
Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 08-16-2003, 02:21 PM:
 
I am not changing situations. I am simply pointing out how ridiculously low we have been running our payroll this summer. We have had unreasonable demands placed on our shoulders, and those are going to continue this fall when we are doing 125-150 people per night and running a twelve screen with three people.

Let me spell out what I'm talking about. One Saturday in May, we did 4100 people with a payroll of 3.4% and a cost per person of .26...anybody who knows anything about stats can plainly see that we were GROSSLY understaffed. I thought I was going to puke after my shift that afternoon. The stress was unbelievable, not to mention that you have to deal with complaints all day long. We have since been permitted more hours to work with, but not many.
 
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 08-16-2003, 04:19 PM:
 
Its seems today that the policy is ignor local regulations and run the place as cheaply as you can.... after all the policy will NEVER be written down so the company is always in the clear! and the manager is always to blame [Mad]

If there is a problem, fire, accident whatever then the duty manager is responsible and the company will deflect blame onto them. The licence holder is deemed responsible and will always carry the can. We all know that the afternoon shows are usually the quietest and therefore the most costly to run.... but you are either in the business or not, you carry the rough with the smooth. During the holiday period the afternoons are quite often the busiest.

As Gerard says, I would hate to be in a large building in an emergency with no staff to assist an evacuation, I've been in many multiplex's where most of the lighting was out due to no matintenance. God knows what it would be like in a power cut.

About 4 years ago the company representative, in charge of maintenance, of the company I worked for actually advised the manager that a fault with the emergency lighting was not a problem.... all he had to do was make sure all the staff had torches! Fortunatly the manager, being a real cinema manager and very experienced, was no fool and the matter was taken further [thumbsup]

The policy in many cinemas seems to be keep doing it until you get caught.... then blame the manager.

Another issue is the causal passing from one screen to another of under age patrons.... without the staff to keep an eye on things its no wonder this illegal practice continues, breaking the law and defrauding the distributors.

I'm surprissed that things are not more tightly controled in America...
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-16-2003, 08:34 PM:
 
Brent ... I agree ... $.26 is WAY too low ... for a busy Saturday I would say that, conservatively, the number should be $.40 - $.45
 
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 08-17-2003, 11:01 PM:
 
To provide a proper level of service in a large theatre you need to be over .55 cents per patron or roughly .70 Hours per patron anything less than that to me is unnaceptable.

I would suggest to every manager on this board to go out and buy a book called "The OZ Principle" and if you can find it a book called "Raving Fans" both have helped me a lot.

Basically it is possible to have a tight payroll budget and run your building effectively. Are all your staff coming on at the same time? Are they all leaving at the same time? What you often see in a multi is a schedule like this...

Joe 10-5
John 10-5
Mary 10-5
Sue 10-5
Jimmy 10-5
Sam 10-5
Rick 10-5
Brad 5-12
Joe 5-12
Rachel 5-12
Steve 5-12
Robert 5-12
Carlos 5-12
Becky 5-12
Nate 5-12
Josh 5-12
Paul 5-12
Roger 5-12

That example uses 126 Hours at lets say an average rate of 7.50 is $945 spent on staff with a maximum of 11 employees on for the busiest period. Lets look at another example...

Joe 10-3
John 11-4
Mary 12-5
Sue 10-3
Jimmy 3-8
Sam 3-8
Rick 3-8
Brad 5-10
Joe 5-10
Rachel 5-10
Steve 6-11
Robert 6-11
Carlos 7-12
Becky 7-12
Nate 6-11
Josh 6-11

This example uses only 80 hours at the average of 7.50 an hour that is $600 on staff a savings of 46 hours and $345 Dollars.
also we have added an extra person during the busiest period. It is harder to schedule but believe me it does work and it will save hours and money.
 
Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 09-15-2003, 02:52 PM:
 
thanks for the suggestions
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2