This is topic Where’s the innovation? Or, where’s the Steve Jobs of the exhibition business? 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=001664

---

Posted by Gary Davidson (Member # 2198) on 04-04-2006, 01:14 PM:
 
Movie theatres have taken an economic hit lately as everyone knows; so is there any INNOVATION on the horizon (other than D cinema) that has the possibility of injecting the business with some customer excitement and cash flow for the theater? I mean, where is the Steve Jobs of the exhibition business? Just wondering.
 

---

Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 04-04-2006, 01:26 PM:
 
Thats the very problem. There is no more creativity or showmanship in Hollywood. When TV threatened the movies we got color, stereo sound, cinerama, cinemascope, the list goes on. Now that the exhibitors and studios are run by bean counters the only thing they care about is the bottom line. Its very sad. I have been working in theatres since 1979 and even though I work for one of the better exhibitors I have become very disillusioned about this business. I bust my butt to make sure my theatre runs as well as it can and I put a great deal of work into my booth and how the films run. And I know there are many out there who do the same and more that would do so if they knew better. But in my estimation the exhibitors have ruined things. Im sure theatres will go on, but I fear the best days are past.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-04-2006, 02:37 PM:
 
Bean counters.....judging by the number of exhibitor bankrupcies, we don't even have very good counters of beans. Louis
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-04-2006, 06:39 PM:
 
And yet, the Mike Blakesleys, Richard Wolfes and Jim Bedfords of the world (and many others) still manage to carry on. It's not the independent exhibs who are killing the industry. They are still the showmen- the people who really care.

You have only to look to the big chains and the distribs, who don't give a rat's ass about anything except the bottom line.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2006, 08:47 PM:
 
The movie business has, much like the music business, counted on the cusomters always being there. The bean counters have taken customers for granted.

The movie industry has done very little to respond to other market forces now fighting for the attention of customers. Instead the bean counters are just trying to sell the same old shit -and tell investors they're going to sell even higher percentages of that shit in successive quarters!

I think what the bean counters are doing is the equivalent of feeding a hot dog to, um, a dog. The dog shits out the, ahem, hot dog. The bean counters pick up that turd (only after it has cooled and hardened), repackage it and then try to resell it as a fresh hot dog!

 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2006, 06:45 AM:
 
Actually, a better name to throw out for this industry...Mike Todd rather than Steve Jobs.

Mike Todd brought us the modern 70mm format back in the mid 1950s...the clowns of today STILL can't top that in picture or sound. 70mm film, wide aspect ratio, 6-channels of sound, 30 frames per second...it was/is better than current presentations and digital ones in most all respects. Not bad for a 50+ year old design.

Maybe it would be easier for the modern people to do better if they would at least choose the best shoulders to stand on.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-05-2006, 11:23 AM:
 
The correllation to Steve Jobs and the "exhibition" business is probably a mismatch. Steve Jobs isn't in the computer enjoyment business, he's in the electronics hardware business.

If you're looking for an equivalent to Steve Jobs in the "movie" business, you already have him. His name is Mark Cuban.

Considering how most people in the exhibition business probably feel about Mark Cuban, that's probably not the guy you're looking for.

But, like him or not, he is an innovator and he's got the money to try out the things he believes in.

And by the way, Steve Jobs is actively trying to get people to watch movies on the small screen of an iPod for $x.99 a pop.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-05-2006, 01:35 PM:
 
I don't agree with the comparison between Mike Todd and Mark Cuban.

Mike Todd spearheaded the development of the modern 5-perf 70mm format. He helped bring a new way to show movies into reality. I think Mike Todd cared a great deal about the long term health of the movie industry, including commercial theaters.

Mark Cuban didn't invent (or even fund) the development of modern HDTV formats or the 2K and 4K digital imaging standards in use for CGI, digital intermediate and commercial video projection. Cuban came aboard after such technologies were developed and is looking for the best business opportunities to exploit. He's a real cheerleader for the format -even to the point of spinning inaccurate claims about how those video formats are better than film. That's the main area where he draws the ire of many film fans.

Cuban is also a proponent of getting rid of release windows between commercial theaters and home video. That and some of the other ideas he has do not have good benefits for commercial theaters. In regard to collasping release windows, such would be extremely destructive to the commercial theater industry. I think that's a big difference between Cuban and Mike Todd.
 

---

Posted by Bob Koch (Member # 1062) on 04-05-2006, 02:27 PM:
 
I certainly agree with Steve on this one. It was the best; and Louis, how much longer have we,when even the bean counters of today, are so far inferior to the ones we used to hate years ago.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-05-2006, 08:31 PM:
 
Problem lies in Hollywood and the amount of rubbish they produce. There doesn't look like there will be another Titanic on the horizon, especially after King Kong didn't do as well as predicted. Theres a need for more films that are well-produced and have popular themes that engage with the audience.

Digital cinema as a new technology isn't going to bring people in beyond the odd 2k or 3D presentation in a few cinemas. What it will bring is a greater range of films to exhibit and greater flexibility. With no need for prints the costs of distribution will go down over time.

I can see a future where you will have 30 or 40 screeners as the norm with an average screen size of 150-200 seats. That way you can show indies and 'limited release' or foreign films and not have loads of empty seats and also show the biggest popcorn movies every 30-40mins. IMAX will cater increasingly for those of us who value the cinematic experience.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-05-2006, 09:25 PM:
 
I can't believe there were actually people who expected King Kong to do Titanic-sized numbers. I'm certainly no expert, but from talking to my staff and about 5 other people around here, I could tell there was no blockbuster "buzz" on that movie. "Narnia," on the other hand....as soon as the poster went up, I had people asking me daily when it was coming.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-05-2006, 09:46 PM:
 
The marketing machine was hyping up King Kong far more than Narnia. Thought similarly that those expecting $1bn takings were off the mark however personally thought it would do better than Narnia and break the $500m barrier.

Can only talk for Narnia as we didn't show King Kong but it was busiest weekend I have worked and it was on at two other cinemas that are literally across the road.
 

---

Posted by Matt Kerekes (Member # 2777) on 04-06-2006, 12:01 AM:
 
Is digital cinema not good enough innovation? They just need to stop worrying about same date dvd releases, and get some better movies out.
 

---

Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 04-06-2006, 02:47 AM:
 
I think the biggest problem is that theaters have priced themselves out of the game. When 2 tickets and a pop cost the same as a DVD why would people want to go to a theatre?

For an example if AMC took a 30% price drop across the board. They would almost definitely make more money at a lesser price and higher volume. You would think there bean counters would know exactly what the point of equal librium is but the falling attendance seems to prove otherwise.

I think this industry will soon be reverting to the beginning of the business cycle to survive. I'm not saying that we will be going back to the movie palaces, but we may look at some of there functions of high capacity auditoriums, limited movie selections, and making the whole experience an event.
 

---

Posted by Matt Kerekes (Member # 2777) on 04-06-2006, 11:14 AM:
 
I agree that prices are too high everywhere, I don't understand why before every blockbuster season prices have to up, just seems like greed to me.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2006, 12:43 PM:
 
Funny how people want new buildings, digital sound, better seats, more employees (to keep a better eye on the audiences), more diligence in the projection booth, more security in the parking lot, less advertising, and better movies, and they want their environment to be warmed or cooled to their liking, but they don't want to pay for any of this even though the costs of providing it all are going up on a daily basis.

Going to a movie is still much cheaper than almost any other out-of-house entertainment there is. The misplaced sentiment that the movie theatre is too high priced is a marketing and perception problem.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-06-2006, 01:16 PM:
 
The problem is that many theaters overcharge and DON'T provide those things.

One thing that needs to happen is the theaters getting to keep more of the ticket revenue than they have been.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-06-2006, 04:36 PM:
 
Getting back to the restaurant analogy, restaurants can spend all kinds of money on ingredients and wait staff, but if the food sucks, people will complain and probably not return.

If the food and/or service is average, people will let it slide if the prices reflect the level of quality they receive. When I go to McDonalds, I expect to get barely passable food, and I expect to have to fill my own soda and throw away my own garbage.

But when I go to a nicer restaurant, and order a steak that runs me a good deal more than a Big Mac, I expect the service to be good and the food to be good as well. I'm willing to pay the higher price for the better experience. Occasionally, I even willing to pay a much higher price to enjoy a meal at a restaurant with exceptional food and great service.

Hollywood has been putting out questionable content since the beginning, and theaters need to play the cards handed to them and quit complaining about the product and worry about the things they can do something about. There's an adage about glass houses and throwing stones that fits nicely.

This summer has plenty of movies that should pull in the crowds nicely. From dramas to comedies to popcorn action movies, there is plenty to choose from, and plenty worth seeing on the big screen and in a group setting.

I don't think the industry needs an innovator so much as it needs theater owners to have the courage to step up to the plate and do the best they can with the shows they're given.

Maybe what the industry does need is a cheerleader, but also someone who is willing to tell it like it is, and maybe even bring some resources to bear to help in the process.

Dan Glickman did a good start at Showest, hopefully he keeps it up and the MPAA and/or NATO gives their support where possible.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 04-17-2006, 02:41 AM:
 
Maybe if the movie companys would stop paying actors 20 million to star in their movies, go find better talent, and take a smaller percentage from theatre chains, then the theatre chains could afford to do more for the customers. Perhaps lower the price of concessions or get some D Cinema and 70mm and IMAX in one gigaplex. I understand the owners of the theatres trying to squeeze out every penny possible...but if they had more pennys to play with, maybe the entire industry would take a turn for the better. All I hear is everyone wanting more more more...the movie studios, the actors, the owners, the employees, the customers. The entire industry seems to be in a downward spiral.
 

---

Posted by Blake Zaugg (Member # 1455) on 07-25-2006, 01:41 PM:
 
Mark Cuban wants your help
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000960073808/

From his blog website:

"The Movie Business Challenge

This is an open challenge. You come up with a solution, you get a job. Seriously.

This is the problem that consumes me more than what Free Agent we are going to sign. How to get the NBA to get their act together. Which 7-11 Im going to run by to get a sandwich. Its that important.

Only HDNet takes more time out my day than trying to solve this problem. Its the holy grail of the movie business. How do you get people out of the house to see your movie without spending a fortune. How can you convince 5 million people to give up their weekend and go to a theater to see a specific movie without spending 60mm dollars.

For those of you doing the math. You are right. Its not unusual to spend 8, 10 , 12 dollars PER PERSON that goes to a movie in the opening weekend. Shoot, its not unusual for studios to spend that much per person to get people to go to the theater through a movies entire run !

How crazy is it to spend more on marketing than the revenue recieved when they go to the movie ? Its double crazy because that revenue is split with the theater. So if a studio spends 12 bucks to get someone to go to the theater, they might only be getting 4 dollars back in return.

You would think that there has to be a better way than spending 1x, 2x, 3x or more times the initial revenue received opening weekend or week ? Right ?

For all of you thinking that there are other downstream revenues such as PPV, DVD, TV, whatever….no shit. Yes, those revenue streams will benefit from the initial spend, but they dont make the economics of getting people into theaters any less frightening.

We are looking at affiliate programs. So people with lots of myspace or other social network friends could get a buck or 2 or 3 if someone goes from their myspace page directly to fandago, moviefone, movietickets.com etc and buys a ticket to a film of ours prior to its release. Get 100 friends to buy tickets to a movie, get a 100 bucks from us.

We are looking at other similar ideas.

We already do movie marketing 101. We do buzz marketing. We put up videos all over the net. We set up websites, myspace accounts for the movies and its characters, we work with movie forums, we buy ads, etc, etc, etc. If its been done before, we are doing it.

So if you want a job, and have a great idea on how to market movies in a completely different way. If your idea works for any and all kinds of movies. If it changes the dynamics and the economics of promoting movies, email it or post it. If its new and unique, i want to hear about it. If its a different way of doing the same thing you have seen before, it probably wont get you a job, but feel free to try.

So go for it. Come up with a great idea that i want to use and I will come up with a job for you to make that idea happen.

for real."
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2006, 02:11 PM:
 
Well as a multi-millionaire, he ought to be smart enough to know that no amount of marketing will make a phenomenon out of a crap movie that everyone hates. On the other hand, if a movie is great, it will generate great word of mouth and people will flock to it.

Take "The Sixth Sense." Disney thought they had a plain little thriller and they dumped it in the end of summer and barely cared about it. It captured everyone's attention and went on to gross hundreds of millions, revitalized Bruce Willis's career and made a superstar out of M. Night Shyamalan because people liked it.

3 years ago Disney had "Pirates of the Caribbean 1" which looked like a bloated mega flop to nearly everyone concerned. Again, it defied all odds and went to the moon. This was done from people seeing the movie and liking it....not from the marketing.

If you spend 60 million to get 10 million people into the theatres on the opening weekend and the movie is a piece of crap, then word of mouth will suck and your movie is doomed. (Think "Charlie's Angels 2" or "Speed 2.") If you spend 10 million to get 2 million people in and the movie is well loved, then you have "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and an eventual $250-million gross.

The REAL dilemma is knowing in advance what the public is going to fall in love with, and THAT is the ultimate holy grail. Not a bunch of marketing. The problem is unsolveable. Just have to keep throwing the best stuff possible at the wall and see what sticks. Sometimes the public will fall in love with absolute crap ("The Blair Witch Project," "Wayne's World") so there is just no way to guarantee anything. It's the nature of the beast.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-25-2006, 02:17 PM:
 
1. Make movies people want to see. This takes talent and risk, not market research teams.

2. Make them want to see it in a theatre. This means that it can't be on DVD 3 to 6 months later. This means that the theatre experience must be part of the show. Marcus Loew, founder of Loews Theatres once said, "I sell tickets to theatres, not movies". He knew that he essentually selling the same product as his competitors, and that he if was to succeed, he would need to make people want to come specifically to his theatres. The competitors have changed to other media, but the problem has not.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-25-2006, 02:54 PM:
 
In his day the movies were so bad he had to sell tickets to theatres.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2006, 04:36 PM:
 

quote: Mark Cuban

---

So go for it. Come up with a great idea that i want to use and I will come up with a job for you to make that idea happen.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The REAL dilemma is knowing in advance what the public is going to fall in love with, and THAT is the ultimate holy grail.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Going to a movie is still much cheaper than almost any other out-of-house entertainment there is. The misplaced sentiment that the movie theatre is too high priced is a marketing and perception problem.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

For a family with 1 or 2 kids, they're going to probably drop $50 for that 2 hours of entertainment.

---

OK fine. Outside of high-school or little league sports, how else can you provide 2 hours of entertainment in front of an audience, in air conditioned comfort, in a cushy seat, for 2 hours, any cheaper?

People who gripe that the theatre experience costs too much don't understand what it costs to bring them that experience. I'm more than happy to tell people the costs of our equipment, seats, film rental and anything else I can think of. After they hear what we have to spend to bring them a movie, they realize what a bargain they're getting.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2006, 11:04 PM:
 
Mike, the point I'm trying to make is most folks do not have an infinite amount of money to blow on entertainment.

$50 is a healthy chunk of money regardless of where it is spent, be it at a theater, a restaurant, playing miniature golf or putting a few gallons of gas in a fuel tank.

It does cost a lot of money to run a movie theater, and most movie theaters see very little of that ticket price revenue. Lots of people understand that and the reasoning why a Coke you can buy for 89 cents at the Circle K costs $3.50 at the theater counter. But the cost of living has been getting more than a bit out of hand over the past several years. The middle class squeeze is very real and many are looking for lots of places to cut costs.

The viewer saves a lot of money by just waiting for the DVD (and waiting for a short time at that).

I'm single, have no kids and no debt. It doesn't cost me nearly as much to see a first run movie and even I wait for most movies of any passing interest to just appear on DVD -if I ever get around to watching the show at all. It's becoming a growing habit to just catch part of it on HBO. Hell, I may even cancel my HBO package once The Sopranos finishes its run.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-25-2006, 11:46 PM:
 
Actually a very successful way to make money in the movie business is to absolutely control costs. Roger Corman did it, Golan and Globus did it and Miramax did it in the beginning. Don't make a film for more than $10M. Don't use expensive talent. Use creative marketing to create buzz. Be satisfied with $30M at the Box Office. Make the rest up in video.

In base ball it's hitting for singles and bunting as opposed to swinging for the fence all the time.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-26-2006, 12:22 AM:
 
Tough challenge, no matter how you look at it... though I wouldn't necessarily say that MOST folks can't spend 50 bucks now and then.

Fixing the problem wouldn't be easy... too many ways to point fingers at everyone but yourself.

Many people don't care for the advertising, but the exhibs are hooked on the income... so that's not likely to change.

Cokes have always been expensive in theatres. If they're $3.50, then it's because SOMEBODY's paying it. It's still cheaper than a beer at the ballpark. So... the exhibs aren't likely to drop those prices, either.

Ticket prices aren't likely to go down. The studios are taking nearly 3/4 of it to begin with, leaving the exhibs the rest to run their buildings on.

The studios aren't likely to lower the percentages. They've got stockholders and pampered actors to pay. They're gonna get the money, whether it's from the theatre, DVD sales or licensing to the cable networks.

All of this works because, like with gas prices, the consumer hasn't abandoned the movies in numbers great enough to get anyone's attention.

I'm still trying to figure out how a company can make a profit when their theatre has 15 screens, yet only the top 5 films are drawing any significant numbers.

Maybe the magic bullet is digital cinema. The industry is much more obsessed with it than whether the customer is happy with what they get for their entertainment dollar.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-26-2006, 08:21 AM:
 
Like it or not, the motion picture theatre business is now an "event" business. The movie business abandoned the weekly family audience back in the 1970's, for various reasons that seemed sound at the time. Unfortunately, they broke the decades old cycle of weekly attendence, and we now are left with a generation who both themselves and their parents rarely attend.

The cost of attending a movie theatre is certainly an issue, but it is not the main issue. You could charge 25 cents, and people still would not come in significantly greater numbers than today. While there has always been competition for leisure dollars, the advent of home video has deminished the value of movie going in the eyes of the public. The same thing happened in the 1950's with the introduction of television. Then, the theatre business responded with stereo sound, CinemaScope, VistaVision, etc. The goal was to produce a theatre experience that you could not get at home, no matter how hi-end your consumer equipment was. This gave the theatre industry a 30 year reprieve. Today, the theatre business is responding to the same threat by making technological improvements to cut cost. This will untimately fail because those who care about good picture and sound can buy some really impressive consumer equipment to watch at home, and those who don't care are happy with their VHS and 19" tv's.

Until we give the public something exclusive to theatres, attendence will continue to drop with the exception of a few "event" pictures.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-26-2006, 09:19 AM:
 
Attendence at movie theatres in the US is not dropping (if you look at fairly long term like since 1970). In fact, attendence has grown faster then the population at large.

The problem is that the number of screens has grown way faster then the population or number of tickets sold.

Too many empty seats. - Matt
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-26-2006, 09:25 AM:
 
A quality operation with friendly people running it will always win....if film is available. I am seeing this right now in Florence SC....and with competition being a Regal 15 screen theatre. The little theatre, with new ownership, is doing very well. Louis
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-26-2006, 11:41 AM:
 

quote: Jack Ondracek

---

I'm still trying to figure out how a company can make a profit when their theatre has 15 screens, yet only the top 5 films are drawing any significant numbers.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

reasonable prices at the BO and counter

---

quote: Charles Greenlee

---

The movies are recorded in a special way where they blister your ears on louder parts, so you should turn them down below (the studio recommended)7, but so quiet during soft speaking parts where you must keep them up around 7, or more.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think Mike Todd cared a great deal about the long term health of the movie industry, including commercial theaters.

---