Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What do you do about an erroneous checker report?

This is topic What do you do about an erroneous checker report? 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=002608

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2012, 09:09 PM:

I got an email from this certain film company today saying that for one of our shows last month, we had (according to their checker) 184 patrons, and we only reported 122.

I was here that night (and every night of that movie) and I know we did NOT have that kind of crowd. In fact we wouldn't ever sell that many seats....we usually stop at about 170. We have 197 seats, so 184 would have been a seriously full house.

We use RTS so we have all the applicable reports. We didn't have some kid selling tickets...my wife and I were in the boxoffice that night. She was selling, I was handing out 3-D glasses.

They have sent us a bill for $400-plus and of course are saying if we don't pay it, they will withhold further films. To me, paying it would be an admission of guilt.

We don't have videotape of the people coming in, so how can I defend against this? The only thing I can think of is our concession per-cap, which would bear out the fact that we didn't have that many people. (I haven't checked that yet but am going to.)

I've never had this situation in my 33 years in the business. How does a person handle it?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2012, 11:14 PM:

Do what you're already doing... make sure you have all the facts you can gather and make sure they support your case. Definitely do not pay. Can you contact them tomorrow and say "Umm... hey?" They cannot guarantee the accuracy of the checker. The checker is only human and probably counted the same row a few times or counted one or two rows and then multiplied that by how many rows they thought were filled, not counting empty seats and the such.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-26-2012, 01:24 AM:

Assuming you have a computer that can be used as double-duty, for less than $400 you can setup an inexpensive IP camera at the front door and record on motion with some inexpensive software. Then you can tell the studio their checker was absolutely wrong and you are using the money they are trying to scam out of you to install a camera for future proof if such a thing happens in the future. [Razz]

Regardless whatever you do, hold your ground. You didn't do anything wrong.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-26-2012, 06:10 AM:

For all you know, the checker gets paid based on the number of overages they find and are trying to profit from "catching" you. Sounds very shady.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-26-2012, 07:49 AM:

I've dealt with hundreds of 'checkers' in my 22 years. Usually they aren't allowed in the building without a letter from the film company they represent. I guess this would have been a 'secret' shop?

I wouldn't put up with this nonsense. How do they prove that the count was correct? I'd want the checker's name and information - as I would run a background check on that person. I haven't dealt with any checkers this year (yet) - but nowadays the individuals who are doing the 'checking' are questionable in character. Seriously.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-26-2012, 08:22 AM:

I've had checkers re-counting each person who went out to use the restroom or concessions. Fortunately, I caught on before any reports were filed and was able to point out the error of their method.

If all else fails, ask them to contact the checker to verify how full the auditorium was when they counted. There's a huge difference between 2/3 full and sold out.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-26-2012, 08:58 AM:

In a full auditorium, with customers moving around, it's hard to count heads. When it gets that full, I often count the EMPTY seats instead of the full ones then do the math.

With a claimed attendance of 184 in a 197 seat auditorium, there would have been only 13 empty seats. As you say, that would have been a pretty darned full auditorium. Almost a "hard" sell-out.

However, with an actual attendance of 122 in a 197 seat auditorium, there would have been 75 empty seats. Even in a "pretty full" house, a difference of nearly six times the number of empty seats would have been apparent.

I think it is this information that you can use to challenge the checker's report.

As others would say, it is the checker who should be under scrutiny. Not you. Not the film company. The checker. Since both of you have a vested interest in making sure the checker's reports are accurate, I don't think it would be hard to bring the film company to your side so that both of you are scrutinizing the data.

When you talk to the company, hold back on the math at the beginning. Just ask them to have the checker report on "how full" the house was. Ask them HOW they counted and whether they noted how many empty seats they saw.

The checker naturally "won't remember" but you could get them to "characterize" the "fullness" of the house.

This is where you can nail the guy. If he says that he saw more than a handful of empty seats, it will be clear that his report was wrong. Combine that with a background check on the guy. See if you can get the company to scrutinize any of his other reports too. If this guy has a history of sketchy reporting, that's damning.

Then, at the end, drop the math in their lap. If the guy says something like, "There were 50 or 60 empty seats," it is clear that his numbers CAN'T add up. If he says there were that many empty seats in the house, there COULDN'T have been the number of people in the house as he said. They wouldn't fit. The house only holds 197.

If there were 50 empty seats in a house with 184 customers, that would have brought the seat count up to 234 which is way more than are actually in the house.

In any case, just say that it would be impossible for the house to have held the number of people that the checker claims.

If the company has (inadvertently [Wink]

) hired checkers who are not truthful or who can't count, they ought be "very concerned." Wouldn't you think? [Wink]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-26-2012, 09:42 AM:

The "checkers" that I have seen are so LOW that sometimes they had to have the manager fill out their report for them. I have personally been unsure if the real checker sent his cousin.

You are right to feel as you do. I would send ONE certified letter stating the facts. No other contact. If they don't trust you, avoid doing business in the future. You would not put up with this on any other business dealing. Don't allow yourself to be put on the defensive. No good for you; no good for them. Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2012, 02:38 PM:

Thanks for all the responses. My wife also thought maybe the checker thought he was doing is a "favor" by making us "look good" by reporting a bigger crowd than we really had.

I sent a letter off to the distrib today, will report back what happens.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-26-2012, 03:55 PM:

Obviously we can't do anything about blind checkers, but I have refused most regular checkers because we've had so many bad ones. I've had checkers cuss me out for refusing to sign a blank report. I've had checkers send their kids, I've had checkers bring their kids to camp out at the theatre all day.

When we do get a checker, they have to check in with the manager for each show, or I won't even give them numbers for that show.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2012, 03:56 PM:

This was indeed a "blind" checker. (In more ways than one, apparently.)

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 06-26-2012, 07:42 PM:

A good reason to do more than one show a day!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2012, 08:45 PM:

?? What difference could that have made?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-26-2012, 09:40 PM:

Like Brad says, cheap infrared cam from an outfit like Smarthome. You need it only to take maybe 5 or 6 stills throught the show aimed at the seating area from a high point, with a time stamp so that you can email the distrib the stills showing the number of people in seats.

At this juncture you can simply point to your unblemished record and claim the checker was just wrong.

Long ago in rural Texas, my first boss, Mr. Schulman, explained checkers to me, which I had never heard of. He went into detail of how you are pretty much at the mercy of some halfwit's abilty to count and click a counter at the same time. After he finished, he thought for a moment then quiped, "All in all, about the best thing to do is just toss em in the potato cellar and forget about em."

He then had to explain to me what a potato celler was.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 06-27-2012, 02:33 AM:

I'm very interested to see how this one plays out...

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 06-27-2012, 04:09 PM:

Mike - have you demanded to see a copy of the actual report that was submittted by the checker?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-27-2012, 05:39 PM:

They sent me a copy of it with their initial email.

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 06-27-2012, 06:45 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
"All in all, about the best thing to do is just toss em in the potato cellar and forget about em."

A booker once told me of a customer he had years ago. When the checker showed up he said "come here I want to show you my new boiler". He opened the cellar door and when the checker stepped down, he shut the door, locked it and didn't let him out till the show was over.
Those were the days when they had a sense of humor in this business.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-27-2012, 07:02 PM:

Actually that's false imprisonment aka kidnapping. I'm sure Jerry Sandusky recently thought his victims didn't have a sense of humor, either.

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 06-28-2012, 08:04 AM:

Seems inappropriate that they are immediately jumping to a fine/threat. While I haven't dealt with outside checkers all that often, the scenarios I have encountered involved them increasing their frequency of visits/"further investigation", when a discrepancy is found, not automatically issuing a threat.

The checkers I have encountered have usually been low paid "independent contractors" (i.e. some person picking up a few extra bucks on the side) who don't exactly do a thorough job and/or care all that much.

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 06-28-2012, 09:48 AM:

I have to tell my story. It wasn't a checker, just a mystery shopper. We're open Thursday through Sunday, and we have a very prominent marquee on our 3-block downtown. Seriously, if you come to town, you can't help but notice the theatre. So Sunday afternoon I get a message saying, please call me back today, it's urgent. So I called her back and she was supposed to be a mystery shopper but she "came to Wayne and couldn't find the theatre" so... would I answer some questions for her? What color are your tickets? How many seats does the theatre have? How many tickets did I sell that day? That kind of thing. I answered her questions and then sent an email to the film company in question. I said, hey, I'm not trying to narc on anyone here, but if that broad gets something wrong and I look bad, just want you to know, she was never even here. I have her name and phone number to show how NOT mysterious she was. I never heard any more about it. But it pissed me off because what if she hadn't called? What if she had just made stuff up? (And I have told my few employees that if anyone ever asks for a receipt for something, assume they're a secret shopper.)

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 06-28-2012, 12:08 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
?? What difference could that have made?

You are more likely to notice someone who is a secret checker if they stay for more then one show a day or as many as 5-6. It would next to impossible for a secret checker to go unnoticed for 5 shows.

Hey I am jealous of you small town guys with over 30 mins to the bigger multiplexes. I would love to work just one show on a week day and love to not have to work late on Thursdays to be ready for Fridays.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-28-2012, 12:11 PM:

Is there any protocol for challenging a theatre checker's report? I have never managed a cinema and have not dealt with such things, but I would hope that there should be some provision for you to say that you have been a customer of X distributor for Y years and have never had a discrepancy in the past and therefore should be given the benefit of the doubt in a situation such as this (and would they have given you a refund if the checker had counted fewer patrons than were indicated on your boxoffice report?).

Agreed with not paying if you know that you have done nothing wrong.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2012, 12:32 PM:

I have written to the film company in question with that exact info and the only thing they have done so far is say they're going to "check" to see how the count was conducted from the balcony, given the fact that you can't really see all the downstairs seats from our balcony.

quote: Mike Frese
I am jealous of you small town guys with over 30 mins to the bigger multiplexes. I would love to work just one show on a week day and love to not have to work late on Thursdays to be ready for Fridays.

Well most of us small-town guys have other jobs. My daily schedule is, I work at the store from 9:00 till 6:00 every weekday (and every other Saturday from 8:00 to 5:00) and I'm at the theatre every night until at least 10:00 on weekdays, midnight on weekends. On Thursdays I DO have to work late to get ready for Friday -- BORs, pay bills, do updates on the marquee, posters, 2 newspaper ads, recording, website, weekly email, Facebook, and employee schedule, plus any maintenance. Oh, and wash 3-D glasses two or three times a week, and wipe water spots off of them. Still jealous? [Smile]

Not that I'm complaining; I love the theatre business but anybody who doesn't think a single-screen takes a lot of work is a dreamer.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-29-2012, 02:02 PM:

I'm with you Mike. A small town theatre is a lot of work but it is also a lot of fun and it is often the focal point of a small town. In a small town theatre you are able to better interact with your customers and program your house to their tastes than are the big-boy's multiplexes which are booked by someone in another state who has never even been to that theatre.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 06-29-2012, 02:20 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
booked by someone in another state who has never even been to that theatre.

Robert, you recommend to every person who asks the same booker in Nebraska I think no matter where they are from. Please!

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm at the theatre every night until at least 10:00 on weekdays, midnight on weekends. On Thursdays I DO have to work late to get ready for Friday -- BORs, pay bills, do updates on the marquee, posters, 2 newspaper ads, recording, website, weekly email, Facebook, and employee schedule, plus any maintenance. Oh, and wash 3-D glasses two or three times a week, and wipe water spots off of them. Still jealous?

Employee schedule? Sounds like you do all of the work. We all do those things on different levels. You do not do all of that on Thursdays. If you are staying late on a weekday it is because you are running labor to the bone. Which I do as well. Still I am feeling lazy by just running 2 shows on a weekday.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2012, 04:38 PM:

I've never EVER seen a checker's report where they attended more than one show. They come in like real customers, pay real money, buy concessions, visit the restroom, go to the auditorium, watch the movie, come out for another restroom check, back to the auditorium to finish the movie and then they're gone.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-29-2012, 06:17 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
...they're going to "check" to see how the count was conducted from the balcony, given the fact that you can't really see all the downstairs seats from our balcony.

From the balcony? No way! Report invalid!

At Mercyhurst, you can only see half of the main floor, standing on the balcony. Even if you go to the brass rail and hang over you can still only see about 3/4.

That gives a 25% error. Assuming the guy counted correctly from his vantage point then extrapolated from the number of seats in the section he couldn't see his count could have ranged anywhere from 130 to 230.

Doing this kind of math can only be correct if you know the exact number of seats in each section of the auditorium and in the auditorium, overall. I doubt this guy knew that information.

Point being, there is NO WAY this guy could have counted accurately and his own report proves it.

The report is invalid on its face.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2012, 06:45 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
Employee schedule? Sounds like you do all of the work.

No -- I don't sell tickets (much), or work in the concession stand. I don't unpack candy, restock shelves, clean the concession equipment, sweep the floors or vacuum the carpet. We have employees for all that stuff. I prefer to be the behind-the-scenes guy who keeps everything running like clockwork. Sometimes I am successful ... sometimes not! [Smile]

My wife is the "smiling ticket lady" (as Sam Graham would say) and she does most of the hiring/firing.

You're right that I don't do all of that stuff on Thursdays. I do some of it each night after the movie, or during the movies. (People always think we get to watch every movie but we have to block out time for it, just like non-theater-owners.)

Back on topic, thanks Randy. I'll be sure to bring that point up when I hear from them again.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 06-29-2012, 08:23 PM:

quote:
Robert, you recommend to every person who asks the same booker in Nebraska I think no matter where they are from. Please!

But that booker works PERSONALLY with every theatre he books. How many of the big-boy's bookers do that?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-02-2012, 02:02 PM:

Mike in all the years I have done this I have never had a report as far off as yours. I have had checkers turn in a few head different (when it is open we fax our copy of the report in where the checker agreed with us). When it is blind and one or two off I argue it may have been an employee pass that failed to post or just pay the difference with a note that I don't believe the report.

The amount they claim you are off so great it sound like a vendetta. So who did you piss off?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-04-2012, 06:36 AM:

So, we seem to be in a situation where each side claims a different figure, and neither side can prove that its figure is correct. Wouldn't it be better if the checker filled in their figures on a duplicate or triplicate form, and before leaving the building presented it to the duty manager. If the manager agrees with the figures he/she signs off the form and both sides keep a copy. If the manager chalanges the figures then a check is made in the presence of the checker and the manager as the audience leaves the auditorium?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2012, 01:40 AM:

That would make a lot more sense, wouldn't it? Still no word back from the studio on their "confirmation" from their checker.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-05-2012, 08:12 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
So, we seem to be in a situation where each side claims a different figure, and neither side can prove that its figure is correct.

The checker mathematically estimated the number of people in the theater and he used poor methodology. Although you can't prove that the box office report is 100% right, we can easily prove the checker's report is wrong. Given a choice between the two, a reasonable person would choose the box report over the checker.

The checker's report was taken from a vantage point in the balcony where it is impossible to see all the seats.

He did it in a mostly-full auditorium where people were moving around at random. Unless he stood at the auditorium door with clicker in-hand, counting everybody who walked in, there's no guarantee he didn't count some people twice or even three times.

He used statistics to guess the number of people in the hall when he was supposed to do an actual head count.

Finally, even if he did the math correctly, there would be so much margin for error in his results that his own numbers could predict that there were more people than seats in the room. If that was true, there would be people standing in the aisles and hanging from the rafters. If that was the case, I wouldn't have sent the report to the distributor. I would have sent it to the fire marshal!

In this case, I don't think we need to prove that anybody's report is correct, be it the checker's report or the house's box office numbers.

I think that we only need to prove that one of the two reports is clearly not correct. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the other report must be assumed to be correct.

It's pretty clear that the checker's report is not correct.

Since Mike's reputation has never, ever been called into question in more than thirty years, in the absence of any information to the contrary, we are allowed to assume that his numbers are correct.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-05-2012, 10:32 AM:

I would print out this column in full and send to your offending film company. Louis

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-05-2012, 10:59 AM:

I'm just surprised that the film company would stake their side of this argument on the personal credibility of a low-paid, contracted person who has presented his/her report with no way to validate the facts.

In your case, if the studios actually believe the checker, there's a bigger problem. If you really had that many more people in your theatre, they could suggest that something fishy was going on at your boxoffice and the RTS paperwork you sent could actually be an indication that someone was selling fewer tickets than made it into your auditorium. That could be a bigger problem for you than the argument over the actual numbers.

You haven't said, but if you have a separate person tear the tickets than the one who sold them, you would have a much stronger position than the checker. I'd think the argument that two people were in collusion would be a stretch, even for the studio.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2012, 03:55 PM:

I don't know if it's a case of them "believing the checker" or if they just automatically send a bill when the counts don't agree. Like I said, this has never happened so I'm in uncharted water here.

I'm surprised they didn't at least give me a phone call or an email first saying they had this outrageous overage. Instead I just got the report, and bill, in one email with no chance (apparently) to speak our side of the story.

I looked at our per-caps. That night, as originally reported, is pretty consistent with any other night (there are some kids movies and such where the concession is way high, or "adult-type" movies where it's way low, but for this genre of movie it's right in there).

Anyway, I'm still waiting for them to get "more information" from the checker. I've been advised by our booker not to pay, and I also notified their cashier that we were challenging the report so with any luck, our credit won't be ruined.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-05-2012, 04:10 PM:

It is ridiculous really you have been in the business forever and they have never had a problem.

Was it a blind check? If so is your state even one of those that will allow such a thing. I would be hopping mad at them over it!

Anyway man I feel for you and hope it resolves the right way.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-05-2012, 04:50 PM:

It's up to the party making the allegation/accusation to provide proof. Otherwise it doesn't hold water.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-05-2012, 06:16 PM:

There can be no proof on a blind check with a single checker it is he said she said then. A film company trusting that is crazy to the max. Especially if they get a bonus for catching someone.

I really think this deal suck big time.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-06-2012, 09:36 PM:

And don't book anything from ????? until this is resolved in writing. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-07-2012, 11:29 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
And don't book anything from ????? until this is resolved in writing. Louis

Ha! Mike actually is in a better position than most to boycott a studio but still the studios really will not care about any independent small town theater boycotting them.

The studios have the power in this situation.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-07-2012, 10:29 PM:

Just morally wrong to send along any more money. Louis

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-08-2012, 11:19 AM:

Louis it is easy for you to say it is morally wrong you don' have to pay his bills. It is real life if they have a movie his patrons want to see he has duty to them as well. He also has a duty to have cash flow in his business. I love it when someone tells you can't do something because they feel it is morally wrong. My morals are between me and God and he is the one that will do the final judging. Disappointing you or anyone like doesn't really bother me. I don't steal, don't false report anything. Pay my bills and treat others the way I want to be treated.

By your reasoning you better not have trash collection because 90% of them are owned and operated by organized crime.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-08-2012, 12:47 PM:

It isn't like Louis didn't run a VERY successful business for decades...including paying bills, serving customers...etc.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-08-2012, 01:41 PM:

Hey Ron, I've known Louis only through these forums for a few years but have come to believe he is one of the most straight forward, honest people I have ever known. I think you are out of line scolding him that way. A person has not only a right but an obligation to stand up for their morals. The problem in our country today is too few stand up for good morals.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2012, 12:30 AM:

quote: Mike Frese
Mike actually is in a better position than most to boycott a studio

I don't know how you figure that. This problem is with one of the majors and there isn't a major we can "do without" over the long haul.

However I do agree with Louis about not sending them any more $. For one thing, it would be an admission of guilt. For another, this is a movie we played on the break and so we already paid top dollar for it.

On the other hand, Ron's right that we don't have a lot of bargaining power. Just 30+ years of straight dealing, on top of 50 more years of straight dealing (so far as I know!) from the previous owners of this place. Hopefully that will count for something.

I still haven't heard anything about their "more information."

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-09-2012, 06:09 AM:

Gosh, guys, thanks for all the kind words.

My small guys have been so beaten up by film companies, that they just roll over.
Conversely, with only one screen, it is impossible to play all films. (I had one guy who always excluded one company when they treaded him badly--no Warner from 1961 to 1971.) Later another replced Warner.

At the end of the day, you have to stand for something. Conversely, there is no corporate memory since turnover is so great and you never see the same guy twice.

You can't sue them; they have too much money and 75 "sharks" just to keep you at bay.

Disputing things by withholding money is about your only option. Louis

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-09-2012, 10:33 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know how you figure that. This problem is with one of the majors and there isn't a major we can "do without" over the long haul.

You only have one screen with too many movies to play. Plus you have said for years that you do not like playing on the break very much.

So, could you not play that studio going forward for 6 mos? You might.

Could you play this studio a lot less than you have been? Yes (I have done this before and I am doing it right now and I have 4 screens and do NOT have too much product to choose from)

Could you not play this studio on the break and play them only after 3-4 weeks? Sure you could.

My point is, you have the ability more than most to do any of the above options if you feel that they are treating you poorly.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2012, 11:03 AM:

quote: Mike Frese
Plus you have said for years that you do not like playing on the break very much.

I never said that at all. I love to play movies on the break. I would like to play a movie on the break every week. The only thing holding us back from doing that is the 3-week, or 4-week, playtime requirements for some movies. Many movies are only worth one week in a town this size. If we could play those lesser movies on the break for 1 week, I'd gladly pay the higher film rent and play on the break as much as possible.

Some movies are easily worth a longer time for us. The Avengers? Yes. Ted? No.

As it is, we have to pick which blockbusters we think will hold up. The ones we desire the most are the super-hyped-up ones that everyone MUST see on opening weekend lest they feel like an outcast. Every major has one or two of those every year, it seems. If we wait a month to play one of those movies it cuts our boxoffice by half, because people who "can't wait" will go out of town to see the movie.

Also keep in mind, if we refuse to pay this thing we will be shut out of playing this particular studio AT ALL, not just a few weeks off the break.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-09-2012, 11:20 AM:

Mike is in the same position we art houses face, though maybe he's slightly better leveraged. A good week in Montgomery is like a bad opening Friday in NYC, so if we were to close tomorrow, most of the art disturbs (especially the studio owned ones) wouldn't give a damn. I'm sure a really good gross at Mike's house barely gets their attention.

And, of course, they can punish him much worse than he can punish them.

I think he should just keep contesting until they give up or escalate. It's totally possible one side of the business doesn't know what the other is up to.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-11-2012, 11:16 AM:

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with my comments to Louis. It wasn't my intention but I do tend to get on my soap box from time to time. I have always protested with the film companies if we didn't jive but it has never been more than one or two ticket sales, so I paid under protest. at that time I had eight screens in one town and 3 in another I needed their product and telling them they were wrong and repeating it every chance I had was enough for me.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-18-2012, 11:42 PM:

In a very factual sober tone, I would send them a letter stating the following:
1) You have had an unimpeachable reputation for so many years. And they are free to check up on your theater's track record in accuracy over the decades with other film companies and that your track record spans a much longer duration than a random checker.
2) It is unfair to go by a single checker's report. Such random sampling needs to establish a trend of some sort , short of verifying numbers right on the spot, which he did not. Say it would be a shame if this got down to some random checker's one instance of failing to do the job right. Shouldn't they at least find two reports before they establish any kind of a trend to eliminate contractor error?
3) Call their bluff. Say you appreciate their business, and that your calling is to serve the community , and it would be a shame to deprive the loyal patrons of certain movies because of one isolated instance of a checker's report clashing with the theater's own records. Say you would be welcome to do on the spot auditing of a movie, if they so desire. But you would sincerely not agree to pay the difference as you believe strongly in the integrity of your records.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-18-2012, 10:59 PM:

Just to update everybody on this situation, we are still waiting for the supposed "more information" from the studio. I told them we disagreed with the report; they said they would "contact the vendor" and obtain more information on how the count was conducted. That's the last I've heard.

Our booker told me he's going to just ask them to forget the whole thing, since it's been almost three months and they haven't been able to substantiate their claim. I don't know if he's made that request yet.

The good news is their cashier is being very nice about the situation. He told me the balance is not showing as "past due," and not to worry about it until we get it settled. And, they're still willing to book their movies with us. (But we haven't played any.)

Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 09-16-2012, 07:48 AM:

These checker issues sometimes take 4-5 month to resolve.

One very wet spring I see a semi-cab entering the property i go running out there to stop them as it wont fit through the boxoffice and it to heavy for the lot. I stopped them half way in and told them they could not enter with that vehicle and they need to Back it out. I was then informed that I have to let them in they are checkers. I said I don't care who they are that cab in not going into my property and they need to back it out. It they want to check they could park it on the highway and walk in. They made threats about reporting me for not letting them in i did not back down on this. At this point they said they were leaving. unfortunately the didn't try and back up like I had said they needed to do multiple times but they tried to make a u-turn and got the front tires buried to the frame Blocking both lanes of incoming traffic on fri. talk about making me pissed. About an hour later they finally got unstuck with the help of a pickup with duo back tires pulling on the semi as it rocked back and forth.

The upshot was the the company the studio hired could not get a hold of these "independent contractors". After about 4 months I got a letter from that company that said while they accept no responsibility for the action of there people here is a money order for $100 as a apology. To bad there was about $400 of repair costs to the lot and fence.

After this i decided when another checker shows up he has to show me a workers comp and liability policy the is current before he can come onto my property to do any work. After 5 years I'm still waiting for one to show up.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM:

It's now been nearly 4 months since the date of the alleged "offense" and we still have not heard anything. They are still willing to book their films with us (although we have not booked any) and they have stopped sending me "dun" e-mails. So maybe they just decided to forget the whole thing. I should be so lucky.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-08-2012, 04:07 PM:

Then they should do the right thing now and send you a letter reflecting that fact so you can move on and not have worry about it anymore.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-08-2012, 07:12 PM:

That would be nice. But remember this is a MOVIE STUDIO we're talking about, they don't behave the same way as ordinary businesspeople would.....you know, treating the customer well and all that.

We're booking one of their movies a week from Friday, so we'll see if they try to dun me for the "balance."

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-13-2012, 08:48 AM:

A letter of apology would be required before I would spend any more cash with them. Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2012, 02:34 PM:

Well as a final update on this issue, it appears that the studio has dropped the charges. I had a phone call about six weeks ago from their cashier asking about this past due balance, so I reminded him it was from the "discrepancy" that I had a disagreement with. He then remembered it and said "OK, I'll take care of it." That was the last I heard about it and we are now booking movies again from the studio in question. We actually only "missed" one of their movies this summer and we didn't really have the space in the schedule for it anyway.

So, amazingly, the whole thing was taken care of without me having to hire any lawyers or write any nasty letters. But thanks to all for participating in this thread and also for the various personal emails I received about the issue. I learned a lot and got a lot of good advice.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-19-2012, 07:20 PM:

Good! Much angst, goes away with a whimper. Typical for studio types.

Other than antacids, no foul for you! Louis