Now I don't think there's anything wrong with those ticket prices. If some film company isn't booking your theatre, it's more likely because you are not paying your film rent in a timely manner and/or violating your contract in some other way.
Or is there some other reason I'm not seeing? I've never heard of a distributor refusing bookings because ticket prices are too low, unless they're SERIOUSLY low like below $4 or something.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-19-2008, 10:55 PM:
The only comments I will make is that the entire Detroit Metro market charges about $7 for child, $7.50 adult matinee and $9 adult evening and the location in question is $4 matinee/child and $7.50 adult evening - a nearby Ann Arbor theatre is $10 adult evening. (these prices are published so anyone can look them up)
I forget the exact numbers, but this location was near market pricing prior to a competitor opening a location down the street 3 years ago(?), which they now play day and date with.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 04-19-2008, 11:04 PM:
Our student, senior, child, matinée prices are $4, and a majority of our tickets are sold at this price. We compete with a new pricey megaplex literally 2 miles down the road which has full digital, etc. I doubt that our chain is not paying fees in a timely fashion, since it is quite large and has tremendous equity, being 78 years old. I am not aware of any contract violations, especially in the pre-screening area, which seems to be a big deal to studios. We typically receive prints on Thursdays, and I can't recall anyone of lower position than myself (booth supervisor) screening movies regularly.
All our other corporate theaters get Sony pictures, and were never cut off from Paramount. I suspect the issue is the split market, and the fact that they suspect they can make a quicker buck at the pricier theater down the street, whereas we have a great ability to sell out shows, sometimes into the third weekend if the movie doesn't suck.
My point with that post was that I feel this sort of behavior suggests that studios realize they are spitting out crap, and are not interested in theaters that will allow long legged movies to shine. I may be way off base, but that is how it seems to me.
Edit: I was beaten to the punch by our competitor, whom I actually have great respect for, as he seems quite devoted to quality presentation.
David, as much as I dislike my employer's changing of ticket prices, I wouldn't call it day and date. If I recall, the $.50 reduction in our prices in January was in response to your company's declaration of "Price War" on us. I have the flier the Canton location was distributing around here somewhere, if you would like to see it.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-19-2008, 11:38 PM:
Galen - the price lowering on our end was a long time delayed reaction to your theatre's first price drop to $4 mat/child and $6.50 adult evening from near market pricing (I'm told the original adult evening price was around $8.00 or $8.50)
I will say that the restriction on prints goes beyond the studios making a quick buck - it is very complicated.
The prices were kept $.25 lower, the $.50 drop was in response to your theatre matching our prices so we went lower . . . . . personally I think the whole situation was foolish on both sides - there was also a similar situation in Kalamazoo. I actually saw the first draft of the flyer/press release so I know what was almost sent out and what actually went out as well as the progression of price lowering (I had to coordinate the changes in the POS system).
I always say that even though our companies might be "mortal enemies" it does not mean we can't be friendly and share information (just not company secrets).
FYI - our booth is open anytime in case you ever want to look over the digital projectors (just let me know if/when and I'll meet you there).
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 04-20-2008, 12:00 AM:
David, it was actually $6 adult evening, $3 everything else when I started there a year ago. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I would love to check out one of your booths sometime, and discuss a variety of issues. I am new to projection and the industry in general, and am always glad for an opportunity to increase my knowledge and abilities.
How often are you in Canton? I am fairly busy this week owing to our lobby remodel in progress, and I don't want to inconvenience you. Send me a PM and hopefully we can set something up.
Posted by Scott McGuire (Member # 4508) on 04-20-2008, 12:31 AM:
Is it true that some studios base their percentage on the average ticket price for an area? For example if the average ticket price for the area is $9 and the studio is taking 80% that is $7.20. If this is true a theatre charging $7.00 is loosing .20 per ticket. If this is the case maybe the company was not taking the print because of that.
Sorry Mike no more "i have heards"
[ 04-20-2008, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Scott McGuire ]
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-20-2008, 12:48 PM:
From my experience, the film rent is always based on a percentage of your gross, or 90% of the gross over the house nut, whichever is higher. I've never heard of a first-week (or best-week) base percentage higher than 70%. Sony/Columbia tried to get 80% for "Godzilla" several years ago and lost a lot of bookings over it, so they went back to 70.
Anybody ever experienced anything different?
I know that a lot of the members here might not have direct access to this kind of information, so please don't post "what you've heard" unless you absolutely know you're correct.
Posted by Ken Russell (Member # 2491) on 04-21-2008, 07:52 AM:
It would seem to me that the proper pricing scheme for tickets is what ever fills 90% plus of the seats when the feature is presented tempered with the meeting of any minimum on the rental. After that for a studio to not allow an independent theater to book a film with the same rental agreement as every other theater would invite a revisit of United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). I could be way off here if things have changed to the point the studios are actually putting a solid value per ticket in the rental agreement but I haven’t heard of that happening, yet. Please enlighten us if any one has experienced it.
What I said is overly simplified but is the basic truth of doing about any business. If you can consistently fill the house to 90% charging $4 a seat but only 20% at $7.50 the decision should be fairly simple. Don’t forget that value goes beyond the price of the ticket. If the service, presentation, and atmosphere exceed the competitors’ then charging the same price as they for the ticket may achieve the 90% capacity.
Just my $.02 worth.
Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 04-21-2008, 08:17 AM:
At a single screen in WNY were I worked our former prices were 4 dollars matinee and 5.50 for evening prices for adults. We had to raise our prices to 5 matinee and 6.50 at night to be able to play fox, sony, paramount, and one other studio I couldnt remember as first run, since most of the product we showed at the time was sub-run. My GM refered to us as getting the "premiere run" engagement status, although I'm unfamialar with exactly what he means.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 04-21-2008, 02:12 PM:
This is what is known as the "per capita" rule. While a studio cannot dictate ticket pricing, they can set a minimum film rental on a per capita basis. In other words, charge what you want, but your per capita film rental will be at MINIMUM based on $7.00/adult $5.00/child, etc. You can charge less, but you have to pay film rental on the per capita.
Posted by Derrick Huggins (Member # 4670) on 05-02-2008, 11:10 AM:
.
[ 05-04-2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Derrick Huggins ]
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-02-2008, 01:24 PM:
Derreck...too much information. The administrators do not allow the discussion of grosses on the forums, specifically exact numbers. That's for your safety and the theatre crews safety. Non-members are allowed to read the forums.
Posted by Derrick Huggins (Member # 4670) on 05-04-2008, 01:47 PM:
.
[ 05-04-2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Derrick Huggins ]
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-04-2008, 02:15 PM:
Derrick: The safety he's referring to is partly your job security. If I had an employee posting that specific information on a public forum I would not appreciate it. It's information that has no place in a public forum, that's all. It's just not the public's business. We're not talking national security here or anything like that.
Posted by Derrick Huggins (Member # 4670) on 05-04-2008, 02:20 PM:
.
[ 05-04-2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Derrick Huggins ]
Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 05-09-2008, 05:34 PM:
sometimes I am told that i can not have a print because the studio does not expect a high enough gross at our theatre. Anyone else have this experience?
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-09-2008, 07:15 PM:
That may be in reference to what I I've heard referred to as "print cost", where the revenue at the theatre didn't cover the cost for the film company's lab bill for that print. This likely is in reference to opening movies "on the break", marginal films like Persepolis, which opened in Lubbock later than it opened in larger markets and Lubbock only got it once a print became available (a theatre in a larger market finaling the film.)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2008, 08:33 PM:
Right. When you go to book a new film, they look at your past grosses with their pictures and/or similar pictures, and if they don't anticipate your film rental covering their print cost and then some, they won't book you. That's just good business, nothing to argue with them about there.
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-29-2009, 07:25 AM:
It has been 384 days since the last post.
Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 05-29-2009, 07:25 AM:
never mind