Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: More Advertising On The Way

This is topic More Advertising On The Way 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=001574

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-06-2005, 11:03 AM:

From USA Today...

Film fans can expect more advertising on big screen

By Laura Petrecca and David Lieberman, USA TODAY

Moviegoers should get used to those ads shown as they settle into their seats.

Ad forecasters at ZenithOptimedia said on Monday that spending on in-theater ads, usually shown before the trailers, rose by 18% this year to $400 million — annd likely will go up by about 15% each year through 2008.

Driving growth is digital projection that makes it easy to change ads or target ads to different audiences, says Tim Jones, CEO of ZenithOptimedia's U.S. operations. "That's directly attributable to the medium becoming more digital. It gives advertisers more options and affordability from a production standpoint."

The forecast was good news for theater owners depressed by the 6% slide in box office receipts this year. To attract more ads, they've spent about $150 million in the last three years to install relatively simple digital projectors just for ads. That's ahead of the much larger investment just beginning for full digital conversion to movie-quality projectors.

Regal Entertainment (RGC) has led the charge, installing digital ad gear at about 5,000 of its more than 6,500 screens in 2002 and 2003.

The ad effort picked up steam in July when AMC Theaters — the No. 2 chain (and aboutt to merge with Loews Cineplex) joined Regal to form ad sales company National CineMedia.

Cinemark, the No. 3 chain, joins next month. "By the second quarter of 2006, we'll have about 10,000 digital ad screens," about 28% of the national total, says Cliff Marks, National CineMedia chief marketing officer.

The typical 20-minute ad package so far looks a lot like TV. Before the trailers, Regal runs a show of ads interspersed with snippets of content about the movies called The Twenty. In January, it will be renamed First Look, and go to all National CineMedia theaters.

The digital transition is attracting more big advertisers — national companies buy 775% of theater ads, Marks says. For example, Wal-Mart just made its first theater ad buy for 10,000 Regal and AMC screens.

For the patron in the seats, big advertisers at least bring bigger ad budgets — and that might lead to higher-quality ads and more experimentation, such as the mini-movie ads some have produced for the Web. And it's unlikely time devoted to pre-show ads will get much longer, since it's already about as long as practical without cutting the number of movie showings.

But not everyone is cheering.

"I detest having to go to a theater and sit through 20 minutes of advertising," says Robert Bucksbaum, who's president of industry research firm ReelSource — aand owns two theaters that don't show commercials. "But it's definitely the wave of the future."

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-06-2005, 12:21 PM:

As if business wasn't down enough already....

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 12-06-2005, 08:41 PM:

It's like the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "Interfection" episode. And the surgery to implant the chip at the base of your skull is so painless...

USA Today is almost as bad as the local news in Minneapolis. Our NBC affiliate is going to sell 10 minute "hosted segments" to advertisers during their morning show. Hardly a newscast to begin with, but just add another hour to that stream of consumer-based monotony that is the Today Show... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-07-2005, 03:44 AM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
The digital transition is attracting more big advertisers — national companies buy 775% of theater ads, Marks says.

huh?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2005, 12:02 PM:

Obviously that's a typo and is meant to be 75%.

Honestly, who gives a crap? Most sensible people don't really like the ads but they realize it's a revenue stream so they put up with it. A vocal minority raises a lot of noise about the ads, and a few dorks with no lives will give up going to the movie theatre because of the ads. This is something that isn't going away, might as well get used to it.

Personally I am glad to be an indie, with no corporate suits to give huge bonuses to, so we don't have to run ads.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 12-07-2005, 02:18 PM:

Actually these are the ads that I dont really have a problem with. This article is talking about using digital projectors for their pre-show ads and basicaly replacing the slide projectors. I would actually hope that the industry would switch from using rolling stock ads and adapt to these instead. I think that the customers would be more accepting of ads that will run before the advertised showtime instead of at. In any event, it would prevent a customer from complaining that they were having to pay to see commercials.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-07-2005, 02:44 PM:

But they _are_ paying to see commercials!

My problem with the video ads (I've only seen AMC's and Loews' variants) is that they are more obnoxious than what they replace (slides) and they look too much like TV (which is in part due to low production values). When AMC used to have film ads (I refuse to use the term "rolling stock," as it sounds dumb), they timed the show start such that the film ads would end at the scheduled showtime. I assume that other chains had similar policies.

Again, customers are paying to see a _show_ and it is the theatre owners' responsibility to put on a _show_. Would people tolerate ads with moving images and sound before a live musical or theatrical performance? I doubt it. Why should motion picture exhibition be any different?

As usual, I'll point out here that I don't mind (and even enjoy) a reasonable number of trailers and even an ad or two which relates to movies in some way (gift certificates, Coke/Pepsi, popcorn, etc.). I can tolerate slides (non-moving images without sound). But film/video ads with motion and sound are just obnoxious.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2005, 03:17 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Would people tolerate ads with moving images and sound before a live musical or theatrical performance?

If they were told that they had to either look at the ad or pay an extra $10 for their ticket, they might.

I don't want to make it sound like I'm in favor of ads -- I'm not -- but that gate is open, and there's no way in hell it'll ever close.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-07-2005, 03:41 PM:

Except that it doesn't reduce the price by $10. It reduces it by something like $.25-$.50. And I have yet to see a theatre reduce its ticket prices after installing video projectors.

I might feel differently about this if it really did result in a significant ticket price reduction.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-07-2005, 07:10 PM:

I was thinking of a theatrical event where the price might be 70 or 80 bucks or more. If it were possible to run "screen ads" there, the proponents would be saying it reduced the ticket price by $10 even if it wasn't really true. (I agree with you that ads don't REALLY reduce ticket prices. It's all just to line the corporate suits' pockets.)

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 12-07-2005, 08:47 PM:

Why is it that the entire industry is going absolutely bonkers over a downturn in business that is generally put at around 7%, yet when other statistics suggests that up to 10% of movie goers might stop attending films in theatres due to screen advertising, it doesn't seem to phase anyone?

As I've mentioned here elsewhere before, my box office is up 7% this year, my concession is up 5%. Admissions are down slightly by 1/2 of 1% due mostly to a modest ticket price increase. That slight amount can change from just one good grossing picture and might over Christmas week if I have a better picture for that week then I did last year.

If the industries business is down by 7% and mine is up by 7%, maybe those "few dorks" aren't giving up going to the movies, but rather are patronizing the theatres like mine that don't run screen ads. I have the only theatre in my area that doesn't show ads. Even the other subrun theatre runs preshow slide ads.

I have no problem with other theatres running screen ads. Based on my experience here in this area, I would ask them to please, PLEASE... run MORE ads.

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 12-08-2005, 12:27 AM:

Personally, I don't mind ads and I don't see why a lot of people are having a fit about them. I will never let pre-show advertising be a deciding factor in choosing which theater to go to. The fact of the matter is many theaters put up a crappy film presentation and if I'm a theater patron with $10 to watch a film, I'd rather take it to the theater that does the best job of presenting the film I'd like to watch. I don't care if there are 5 or there are 50 ads playing before a scheduled start time, if the show starts on-time and it looks and sounds great then I'm going to be frequenting THAT theater regardless of whether or not they play ads.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-08-2005, 01:10 AM:

Yeah, to me the real time to complain will be when the ads start cropping up after reel 3. Although, I must admit it would be nice to have a bathroom break in some of these longer movies. (Surprised they haven't thought of that....oops, wouldn't work, people going to the bathroom aren't watching the ads.)

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-08-2005, 07:51 AM:

Duh, Mike...

Put the ads in the bathroom!

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-08-2005, 10:01 AM:

Or on your parking stripes!

www.parkingstripe.com

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-08-2005, 10:21 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Would people tolerate ads with moving images and sound before a live musical or theatrical performance?

That already happens over here. Video based (from film) adverts are shown at the intermission of some big musicals.

Some theatres are listed on the Pearl and Dean Website Example

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-11-2005, 01:05 AM:

There are already ads in the bathrooms at the Regals around here. They're hanging right over the urinals.

So let me get this straight.... box office ticket sales are down, which means the number of customers is down, but advertising revenue is UP? How is that even possible? If fewer people are patronizing theaters, how does the price of advertising in those theaters go up?

It also strikes me as odd that theater companies are relieved that they can replace missing box office revenue with more advertising revenue. If we follow that through to conclusion, we'll have all ads all the time generating all the revenue, and no customers in the building, which of course is ridiculous, and doesn't work.

We do a lot of work to make the presentations and the customers' experiences the best they can be here. And I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a little tired of going the extra mile for an industry that is TRYING to collapse in on itself.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 12-11-2005, 08:37 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So let me get this straight.... box office ticket sales are down, which means the number of customers is down, but advertising revenue is UP? How is that even possible? If fewer people are patronizing theaters, how does the price of advertising in those theaters go up?

Probably getting more advertisers, not raising the price of the advertisers they have.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-11-2005, 01:03 PM:

quote:
But they _are_ paying to see commercials!
...Again, customers are paying to see a _show_ and it is the theatre owners' responsibility to put on a _show_.

Back when the fallout over Regal's digital ad installs was just hitting, a Regal Cinemedia rep was presented with this argument. His response was something along the lines of "The customer pays for the movie. That's his time. Everything before that is our time"

quote: Richard C. Wolfe
If the industries business is down by 7% and mine is up by 7%, maybe those "few dorks" aren't giving up going to the movies, but rather are patronizing the theatres like mine that don't run screen ads.

We noticed that at our indoor. What's more interesting is that we're just starting to hear that from customers at our drive-in!

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So let me get this straight.... box office ticket sales are down, which means the number of customers is down, but advertising revenue is UP? How is that even possible? If fewer people are patronizing theaters, how does the price of advertising in those theaters go up?

Matt could be right; that revenues could be up because of increases in advertising rates. It could also be a matter of how the industry manipulates the way they calculate the number of visual impressions an ad will get (which is the "benefit" that is sold to the advertiser).

The only way a theatre really knows they have a customer for "auditorium 3" is when they actually sell the ticket, which means that "the 2wenty", or "First Look" is useless as long as nobody's watching it but the cleanup crew (where one might actually exist). The theatres sure don't want to dwell much on the notion that a large percentage of their patrons might intentionally wait until just before showtime, specifically so they can avoid the ads... nor will they be likely to discuss that phenomenon in the media.

The theatres also have no idea when a customer actually enters the auditorium, even if he buys the ticket early enough to potentially be in there. So, while it might be as simple as the ads in an auditorium being credited to a viewer by virtue of the ticket sold.... my bet is there's a lot of voodoo involved in how the numbers are really guessed at, which may even vary between chains or even regions.