Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers?

This is topic What cinema brand/naming had the most brand recognition with consumers? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006878

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-09-2013, 09:17 PM:

Help settle a score with my boss

What in your opinion has/had the most brand or consumer recognition with the customer?

a) THX
b) Dolby
c) Dolby Stereo/Surround
d) Dolby Digital
e) DTS Digital
f) 70MM 6-Track
g) IMAX
h) The current AVX/RPX/ETX thing

What has the least?

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-09-2013, 09:53 PM:

Dolby had it. Didn't lose it but it's not the same.

Now,

They've all lost a bit from us folks. I think DTS still has it, at least to a nerd like me.

THX is damaged goods, sadly. In principle, it was a good thing.

IMAX has become a joke with us. The average Joe loves it foolishly.

AJG

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-09-2013, 10:43 PM:

We could throw in:

Films recorded in Ultra-Stereo and not Dolby
CDS - Cinema Digital Sound
ShowScan
8/70mm "Giant Screen"

Started with Dolby Stereo (in this generation and recent decade), but nobody cares anymore due to digital presentations.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-09-2013, 10:50 PM:

I think for the most part the first thing that comes to people's minds for these brands is:

Dolby (and Dolby Surround) = loud
Imax = big picture, loud (but they are really diluting that with "LieMax")
Dolby Digital = REALLY loud
AVX/RPX/ETX = Big picture (but not Imax-big), plus really loud
DTS/Datasat = I think most people haven't got a clue

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-09-2013, 11:30 PM:

The only thing I ever have people ask for by name is IMAX. I very rarely hear anyone say THX. Very few customers even ask about surround sound or sound formats. Even when it comes to 3D, I rarely have anyone ask for a specific 3D brand; it's RealD when they do.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-10-2013, 08:17 AM:

Overall probably Dolby generically. Recently probably IMAX. I don't think anybody latches on to the proprietary acronym soup systems.

I guess you can throw in generic 3D since some movies (I think Disney) has the stupid "In Theatres and 3D" tagline. I'm confused since I'm not sure where to go for 3D since it is apparently somewhere other than a theatre.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2013, 11:24 AM:

Of that group...the most universally recognized name with joe blow consumer is Dolby. It is the most pervasive name in many aspects of life...not just cinema. THX and DTS are in the mix but are only going to be of interest to the geeky folks with the whiz bang home cinemas. Imax is going to have recognition to cinema people but as Mike states...it is relating to BIG PICTURE. 70mm definitely still has a draw (ask anyone that still runs it) but it is going to be an older crowd. How will a teenager of today, that has never associated the name 70mm with anything other than a measurement who has progressively never seen "film" going to relate to a better version of what they haven't seen or don't remember?

That said...I think IMAX, as a distinguishing name is going to sway more movie patrons than the other brands, at this point. And just like with THX or 70mm or the various sound formats...they won't know just what the difference is but they perceive that it is somehow better than the rest.

I don't think one could sway one extra ticket by advertising "Presented in Dolby Digital". The presumption is now that everything is at least 5.1 digital audio...heck DCI has stipulated that. They have that in the home and have had it for many years.

If the new super sound systems like Atmos and Auro are going to gain customer recognition, there will need to be a very concerted effort to educate the consumers of their benefits. For the most part, the sound systems have been silent on getting the word out. A snipe in the feature is too late to advertise to the person already in the auditorium.

I think Surround 7.1 has some draw (I do ask those of our customers have it) since people, like with 70mm, can recognize 7.1 is more than 5.1 and it often has the Dolby name in front of it to give credibility (and also has a home version). I don't know if one would skip their preferred show time to catch the 7.1 version instead of a 5.1 though. We recommend to our customers to go all 7.1 rather than just the big theatres...it sets a perceived quality level for the complex rather than having the good versus bad auditoriums. I think about half of the systems we converted are Dolby Surround 7.1. Honestly, the criteria was if the theatre was essentially already wired for it via Surround-EX/or just had the rear surrounds wired to separate amp(s). All of our new systems will be 7.1 because it just doesn't cost anymore.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-10-2013, 11:53 AM:

we actually just went through a similar "score" with our owner - his theory was that less than 5% of our guests did not know what our brand of large format was, we thought it was more like 20%. Since our POS has a built in survey feature we ran a survey over a weekend and the results were that more than 50% knew what our LF branding was.

My ranking based only on brand recognition (not perception of brand quality):
Dolby (mainly due to consumer products)
IMAX (mainly due to years of museum type films)
THX (consumer products a factor)
Digital sound on film (I don't think there was much recognition of SDDS v. DD v. DTS, at least not around Detroit due to SDDS rolling out first at AMCs and Loews)
Dolby Stereo ("back in the day")
70mm ("back in the day" and higher in markets where it was available)
AVX/RPX/ETX last only because they are new and there are so many flavors, although in areas and locations where it is available I think it would rank higher (and rank higher among regular movie-goers and not just the general public).

I think my 2-4 above are about a tie so they are hard to rank.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2013, 11:55 AM:

Really? Is this a serious question?

Cumulatively speaking, it's going to be Dolby. Virtually everybody has at least heard of Dolby. Most would readily associate the brand with some kind of sound format.

The advent of digital sound rendered "sound format" less of an issue for most patrons. Even THX -- which isn't a sound format -- suffered as "digital" became the new marketing buzzword.

Dolby's name is still prevalent in cinemas -- but is now becoming associated with picture. So, while the name and logo are still "out there" and recognizable. I question whether they are especially associated with cinema sound anymore (for the average consumer.)

I think most of the current movie audience knows what IMAX is, and the brand probably has marketing power today. People commonly refer to seeing something "on the big screen," so it is logical to assume that "bigger is better." Without a doubt, that is the marketing power behind IMAX nowadays.

Regarding 70mm...

Is it possible that 70mm only APPEARS to have a draw today, because it's so scarcely available?

What would happen if those mini-festivals of 2001, LAWRENCE, etc occurred every month (instead of, say, annually)? Do you think we might see the crowds dwindle?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-10-2013, 12:05 PM:

re 70mm - I think the same can be said about IMAX release films - they purposely limit the number of locations that have it so the grosses are higher on those screens, if every location had an IMAX auditorium the grosses would be average per screen.

The same can be said for alternate content - when the Met Opera is live at only 1 or 2 locations in a large market it gets a good crowd, but if 10-15 locations show the same show then the limited crowd gets distributed and not worth running.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2013, 12:10 PM:

In today's market, IMAX would probably beat 70mm if they were equally available.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2013, 12:12 PM:

No...70mm is still definitely a draw...again, ask anyone that runs it still. But it is going to be with older audiences though some young ones get to realize what they missed in the 35mm film era.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2013, 12:18 PM:

BTW I once drove from Oakland to Santa Monica's Aero Theatre (probably around 900 miles) to catch a 70mm screening. I was going to have to make that drive anyway (heading home from vacation) but I planned my departure/return around the screening.

So -- just to clarify -- I'm not being an "insensitive prick" -- My question comes not out of a disdain for the format but, rather, taking into consideration the cultural shift away from traditional formats.

Film formats -- all of them -- are trending toward "niche" status.

So, from a business standpoint, I suppose my question to the original poster should be -- what's your market? Mainstream or niche?

If this was a serious discussion about which direction to take the business, we could eliminate a lot of those choices right off the bat.

I missed the question about "what has the least" marketing power.

Hmm -- I would like to say that the AVP/ETX (or whatever) has the least power -- mainly because customers (and probably some theatre staff) can't accurately or succinctly describe what it really is. However, having said that, a lot of people didn't understand what THX was and it was a huge success despite this. And I suspect back in the 1980s a lot of people who sought out 70mm may not have known exactly why that was the right choice.

Maybe charging more for those "fancy" formats is what makes them sell. I dunno.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-10-2013, 12:29 PM:

Referring to 5.1 audio, Steve wrote:

quote: Steve Guttag
They have that in the home and have had it for many years.

I'd have to wonder about that. I have a feeling the "average" consumer doesn't even know what "5.1" means. Sure you're going to have a group of geeks like all of us here who are in the know, but there is also a huge group of non-picky TV watchers who don't really give that much of a crap about sound. As long as they can hear what's being said they're fine.

There is a gigantic group of moviegoers who feel the same way.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-10-2013, 12:33 PM:

At this point, even "35mm" draws people to repertory screenings. Especially among the horror-movie crowd, for some reason. I don't really understand why, but the people who are fans of that genre usually seem to be film (as in the actual medium) fans as well.

Even if they haven't seen it, many non-film-geek types have heard of "70mm," and at least know that it offers higher quality than regular movies.

As for the brand names, Dolby and Imax would the only two that would matter to normal people. "Dolby Stereo/Digital/7.1" implies "good sound," even if the sound is actually not that good and/or is just loud. "Imax" implies "big picture," even if the picture really isn't that big.

I'm not sure if anyone really knew much about DTS or THX. At least, no one really ever seemed to know what THX meant--only that it was "good" in some way. Not that it matters now that you can buy THX-certified computer speakers.

If someone opened a Super-Hyper-Mega-Ultra-Dolby-Stereo-Imax-HD-70mm cinema, I am sure that it would do good business, at least for the first week or so.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-10-2013, 02:55 PM:

Thinking about this further, I think there are three names people associate with movies in my market: Cinedigm, DLP, and Dolby. We have been running policy trailers every show for all three since we went digital. Consumers may not have any idea what Cinedigm relates to, but they know it's "a new paradigm in cinema". And they probably associate DLP with picture. Since we run the Dolby balls trailer with every show, they probably associate Dolby with sound - they may even have a perception of the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-10-2013, 03:34 PM:

We run Dolby's Sphere with shows aimed at younger people, but if it's a show aimed at the older crowd I'll use the Countdown trailer. I still wish Dolby would come out with something that's actually musical, rather than just clanking and banging and whooshing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2013, 04:25 PM:

Dolby should never have issued the Sphere (aka "Balls") snipe in 5.1

While you may play the Cinedigm snipe with each show...I doubt your customers are conscious of it. The only time they see it is in a Cinedigm VPF theatre. DLP people may know a bit due to consumer stuff but that is mostly high-end.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-10-2013, 06:38 PM:

But, is RPX and D-BOX worth it since you have to pay extra for these event formats?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2013, 06:57 PM:

Maybe. Maybe not.

In practical terms, I doubt it really matters.

If the product is of "good" quality and there's a catchy name and an up-charge, people will (generally) assume it's "better" quality and therefore walk away feeling that it was worth the added cost.

Most people probably expect these places will have a really big screen, really loud sound and stadium seating. Probably all of these branded "experiences" deliver that. But...so do many non-branded screens, without the up-charge.

A catchy name and an up-charge probably couldn't lend a "halo effect" if the product is clearly inferior to what other cinemas are offering. But I could be wrong.

I really expected a backlash against up-charges by now but, here we are.

As for the Dolby (and THX) trailers -- I wish they would release the older ones as DCP's. Some variety would be great.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-10-2013, 07:21 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
While you may play the Cinedigm snipe with each show

You would actually be surprised. I've a number of customers recite, "Cinedigm, a new paradigm in cinema". Again, they have absolutely no clue what it means. To them it's probably just a marker for the transition between pre-show and the actual program. Since we started running it not long after our digital transition, I would assume some simply equate Cinedigm with digital cinema is some sense. However, I don't recall having a single person inquire as to what Cinedigm actually refers to.

Posted by Christopher Crouch (Member # 3784) on 08-11-2013, 05:10 AM:

The average customer probably recognizes IMAX and Dolby (in a generic sense, not specific formats like Dolby Digital). THX might still be a "name" among customers over a certain age, but the brand has certainly lost name recognition with most consumers. DTS and 70mm 6-track would likely be something only the hard core element would acknowledge. The various exhibitor "big experience" brands would probably vary greatly in name recognition, with most people just thinking "the big screen", rather than associating a specific name with it.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-20-2013, 02:14 PM:

My guess is that IMAX has the most, largely due to the massive expansion and marketing push that has been done over the past few years.

Dolby follows that closely, simply because they have been around so long and their name is synonymous with movie sound. Anyone paying the least bit of attention would recognize the logo and its association with movies, even if they couldn't tell you what the company did or how its products affected their moviegoing experience.

DTS is going to have some recognition, but greatly diminished compared to Dolby. People interested in the home theater hobby are going to recognize it, but probably not most casual moviegoers.

The generic "surround sound" term is going to have more comprehension than any of the actual companies involved in it, but 5.1 or 7.1 et al don't mean much to non-enthusiasts.

THX would probably have quite a bit of appeal to people, even if they didn't know exactly what it was or understood how it impacted the moviegoing experience. There has been enough branding over the years that it would take very little marketing to make it a viable brand again.

That fact is helped by all the big-screen concept theaters out there that use "X" in their names. AVX, XD, RPX, ETX, etc. all play off the effectiveness of the THX branding. I also believe that such brands are only effective regionally in the markets where they have been implemented. Ask someone outside of Texas what AVX meant to them, and they probably would look at you with bewilderment. Such brands only mean anything to the customers who have had it pushed in front of them, which means only those customers that go to Santikos theaters, in the AVX example.

70mm is a niche format with an ever-decreasing base of people that even know what it was, much less have ever seen a movie in the format. This probably would have the least recognition and comprehension of all of them.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, how many theaters that utilize any of these brands actually provide information about them, and how they impact the moviegoing experience? Some web sites do a good job, while others do nothing or hide it so well, it's nearly impossible to find.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 08-20-2013, 02:23 PM:

IMAX

and for the film nuts 35MM in this age of DCP.

All the other names don't bring people into then cinema... (other then 70mm). Sound wise no one cares anymore its all "digital"... digital good.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-20-2013, 04:01 PM:

Quite frankly, most consumers didn't care whether it was DTS or Dolby Digital when multiplexes used to promote them in the 90s. I know, I didn't as long as it was one of them. THX was a selling point to me at the time. But these days, theaters do not advertise the stuff I am interested in. Is it 4K or 2K digital projection? No clue. What kind of digital projectors do they use? No clue. What kind of sound do they use these days? No clue.

IMAX is no longer a big selling point to me after all the LIEMAX crap, especially for movies with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

Just crank up the resolution of the next digital presentation format and I am there to watch it in the theaters.

Sadly, I may be in a small group of consumers that gives brightness huge priority, but these days, I have actually chosen the smaller auditorium to watch certain movies because I was fed up with the dim projection in the "showcase" major screen in a certain multiplex. Wasn't projection brightness part of the THX certification of a screen ?

70MM used to be a huge draw in countries like India. Hell, on a recent visit, I had a brand of "dosa"(looks like a crepe for those who do not know what it is) called 70MM dosa which was to signify how huge the dosa was.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 08-20-2013, 08:31 PM:

A few years ago Kodak would have been high on the list, unfortunately the brand is now the most valuable part of the company.

A problem with the Dolby brand is the range of products it is/was associated with. At a former site I worked in had a digital equiped screen that still had Dolby A-Type sound used for film presentations (until the site went fully digital film was still commonly used). The customer experience of Dolby sound their would not be the same as the experience of the latest Atmos System. The other main problem is that most digital films do not have a branded soundtrack.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-20-2013, 11:39 PM:

Dolby. No contest. We're talking over 40 years of history. And a brand with recognizable "equity" that extends far outside the techie circle it serves. Movies like Jaws and Star Wars as well as the first consumer tape decks equipped with Dolby noise reduction made Dolby a household name in the late 1970's into the early 1980's.

For instance, the modern version of 70mm (the Todd-AO variant from the 1950's) has almost always had 6-track audio. It wasn't until late 1976 with the re-make of A Star Is Born that Dolby got added to the "70mm" mark. Star Wars solidified that in 1977. "70mm" soon turned into a brand no longer a complete phrase without the "six-track Dolby Stereo" subhead added. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan brought about the most popular 70mm logo, complete with the "six-track Dolby Stereo presentation" subhead.

Dolby's brand name has faded some in recent years. Its 3D process does not have anywhere near the publicity of RealD or IMAX 3D. The revolutionary Dolby Atmos process has little if any advertising muscle behind it -certainly nothing in support coming from any of the major Hollywood studios.

In past 20 years DTS has gained a lot of traction, particularly in the area of home theater. DTS has been dominant in the field of surround sound music. DTS is pretty much the de facto surround sound format for Blu-ray disc, reversing the trend Dolby Digital enjoyed on DVD. On the downside, DTS is very much now a home-only kind of thing. The theatrical process is now, wrongly, called "Datasat Digital Sound" -IMHO a huge marketing mistake. Datasat's D-cinema is based on that brand rather than using the equity of DTS. The home and theatrical units of what used to be the same company should have worked out some kind of arrangement. Oh well.

Many average movie-goers know of the IMAX brand, but far too many are unknowing or ignorant of the differences between true 15-perf 70mm IMAX projection (combined with 15-perf 65mm IMAX original cinematography as opposed to "DMR" blow-ups from 4-perf 35mm film or HDTV quality video).

Going further, most average movie-goers probably couldn't pass any sort of mock exam about various features or achievements in technology of Dolby, DTS, SDDS, IMAX or that of any other commercial movie theater technology vendor.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-21-2013, 02:04 PM:

I'm going with IMAX because "SEE IT IN IMAX" is so heavily used in television advertising and even news hype. That wasn't true with any of the sound formats ever. IF an exhibitor even bothered noting anything about sound in their ads, unless the ad was Act III, it probably read simply "Digital".

In its day, 70mm would have been my vote.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-22-2013, 12:34 PM:

It seems we are talking about two different things here:

Brand recognition vs the actual drawing power of brand.

The original post (and the topic of the thread) is only concerned with recognition, in which case, I suspect Dolby has the strongest brand recognition (with IMAX probably in 2nd place). The current "AVX/RPX/ETX thing" probably has the least brand recognition.

And then there is the issue of the public's general understanding as to what is behind any of those brands.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-22-2013, 02:39 PM:

Since starting in the business professionally in 1950 I have seen a lot of changes. And those changes have been great. But I have never seen or heard any customer choose any theatre I worked at or owned because of what kind of equipment was used to reproduce the sound or picture. They chose the theatre based on who or what was on the screen. I suspect those who choose a theatre based on the equipment today are a few of what I call "technogeeks". A good story with a strong cast would bring in the customers even if it's in a 1.66x1 format, 2d, black and white with mono sound.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-22-2013, 07:04 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
That fact is helped by all the big-screen concept theaters out there that use "X" in their names. AVX, XD, RPX, ETX, etc. all play off the effectiveness of the THX branding.

I think you're right! OK that's it.....I'm changing the name of my theatre to the RoxyX.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-22-2013, 11:37 PM:

One of the ways that companies sold Blu-Ray over DVD was to have a side-by-side of the exact same show. Shocked a lot of people when they saw the difference in details. Like they say, folks don't know what they want until they know what's available.

But yes, there's a whole lot of people who don't care. I don't understand.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-23-2013, 02:53 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think you're right! OK that's it.....I'm changing the name of my theatre to the RoxyX.

Or just the ROX.

(as in 'this theatre rox').

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-23-2013, 08:37 PM:

Wouldn't CinemaScope qualify in this category?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-23-2013, 10:44 PM:

Yeah but I'd wager almost NObody knows what that means anymore.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-24-2013, 12:50 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
Since starting in the business professionally in 1950 I have seen a lot of changes. And those changes have been great. But I have never seen or heard any customer choose any theatre I worked at or owned because of what kind of equipment was used to reproduce the sound or picture. They chose the theatre based on who or what was on the screen. I suspect those who choose a theatre based on the equipment today are a few of what I call "technogeeks". A good story with a strong cast would bring in the customers even if it's in a 1.66x1 format, 2d, black and white with mono sound.

I'm going to re-post this on every new page in this thread until y'all finally get it. LOL

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-24-2013, 01:27 PM:

Ok Manny I'll bite. While I agree with Robert's statement, it isn't ENTIRELY true. I know of many non-technogeeks that will not patronize a specific theater here or there because of the following items.

*No masking. It's a bigger deal than people realize and is NOT a cost saving measure in the big picture. (It's also a requirement of DCI, so every one of those theaters that skip the masking shouldn't be getting VPF checks.) Regardless people feel cheated as they are teased with a big screen and either due to the movie's aspect ratio or just a bad room design don't get the screen filled with the movie and they feel ripped off no matter how big the actual picture ended up being. This is a bigger problem with auditorium that don't have side masking, because the height of the image has more affect on where people choose to sit over width...and I know of masking-less theaters with a 1.33 screen that then play a 2.40 ratio show on it and then all of a sudden the desire to move closer hits (which may or may not be possible once the show starts).

*Bad sound. You know the kind, where your ears bleed from the excessive shrill of the high frequencies and lack of low frequencies to balance it. Non-technogeeks don't know WHY the sound is bad, but they DO NOTICE that it is bad.

*Bad picture. This one isn't near as noticeable as bad sound to the non-technogeeks, but I can't begin to tell you how many people have come to a theater of mine and said repeatedly "wow look at that picture, wow, damn that looks really good, this looks soooooo much better than the blah, blah theater down the street from me" in amazement as if they had never seen a properly setup (and spec'd) system.

*Bad seats. Uncomfortable seats are uncomfortable seats. An uncomfortable seat should NEVER be a distraction to a point where it pulls someone out of the movie.

So the non-technogeeks may have no idea what kind of projector or speaker is being used, but I do assure you they "notice" and they DO "know". The real question is to what extent do they vote to their approval or dissatisfaction? Many people can't be bothered to drive further to see that movie they wanted to watch, but I've consistently found as people are introduced to a quality presentation that they will seek it out in the future, even if it means driving a long distance. And no these are not "technogeeks".

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-24-2013, 01:49 PM:

True -- sucky theatres suck, and people will likely avoid them, once they know this about the place.

But, at what point does the general public decide that a theatre is "good enough"? The theatres you describe are obviously substandard. Maybe even sub-substandard if multiple factors conspire.

But what about a "standard" movie theatre? What's the level of satisfaction with something that's "right down the middle"?

Also: Do "great" theatres suffer if their technology is non-branded? In other words -- getting back to the original question that started this whole thing -- how important is techno-branding to today's general public?

I'm curious to know:

Does branding affect decision to select one venue over another?

How well does the general public actually understand what's behind the brand?

Do loyal followers of a certain brand know the key differences between their chosen brand versus the competing brand(s)? In other words, is it an intellectual decision or an emotional attachment?

Returning to the notion of the "standard" movie theatre...

Imagine two identical, well-equipped theatres, both showing the same movie at the same show time...I wonder would happen if:

We branded one of them with some kind of gimmicky name; or

We advertised the projection and/or sound format of one, but not the other (even though they are identical).

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 08-25-2013, 07:40 AM:

I tend to agree with Brad, but sometimes I think I'm just a dreamer. I watched a film with a friend months ago, the auditorium was small and the projector was a brand new Christie 2210.
The picture was ok - just too small - but the sound was something incredibly dull. Just the volume was very low, I think something lower than 4.0, and dialogues had been slightly raised to compensate. Result: a sort of mono film, with no LF, no surrounds (but every now and then during louder scenes I could barely hear the loudest surround effects), just dialogues, which were not too bad I must admit. That was an action movie I had seen it before (in Atmos, so it hurted even more!).

Comment from my friend at the end of the film: "the sound was not bad".

Manny's comment is solid: what is the threshold for a patron to distinguish between BAD and GOOD?

Steve: is the Sphere logo available in 5.1? I liked the idea of the 7.1 version because it does not work in 5.1 (All....you)!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2013, 12:34 PM:

The Sphere logo WAS available in 5.1 on the TrailMix drives a while back, but everything Dolby has disappeared from those drives now.

It is not available on the Dolby Extranet site either -- in either format. Strange, because the Countdown trailer IS still available there.

It's too bad, because Sphere is a good trailer to use with action movies or kiddie movies.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2013, 04:13 PM:

Mike, The heck you say? It is FIRST on the list of Dolby Content and Trailers.

I've been in this business a long time now too (finishing up my 33rd year). I have DEFINITELY been in various cinemas where a strong factor in the choice of the theatre was the brand of equipment used (Dolby). I've never heard a patron say they prefer a Norelco or Kinoton or Christie...etc. projector. They have no brand recognition there. However, I have had them definitely give high praise a for a theatre's projection and sound without knowing what was doing it (or who, in some cases). I have also definitely heard patrons comment on coming to specific theatres due to THX being on the marquee. Again, brand recognition with the home.

It would be pointless to boast a brand for something that does not have consumer recognition already...they have no frame of reference as to what it is.

I would say that in smaller markets that the brand thing means less than in bigger/more competitive markets.

-Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2013, 08:36 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Mike, The heck you say? It is FIRST on the list of Dolby Content and Trailers.

Well...you're 'sort of' right. It's not called "Sphere" on that list, it's called "Dolby Surround 7.1 Trailer." So I could be forgiven for not spotting it.

And the 5.1 version is not there for sure!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2013, 11:03 PM:

There's lots of stuff in the average cinema that's usually not visibly branded, so most customers would never even know how to distinguish it.

Most people don't know what brand of projector you're using and very few cinemas run some kind of Barco DLP or Sony 4K trailer. Almost nobody knows the brand of screen you're using and neither that of your seats, unless it's something special/annoying like D-BOX.

Besides some "premium" formulas like D-IMAX, the sound system manufacturers have always had the most prominent branding. Dolby systems, in all its forms, have been the widest deployed sound systems for many years, so it is obvious that people recognize the Dolby brand the most.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-26-2013, 08:03 AM:

Even though I don't work in theaters, I do follow all the branding. And i can say it didn't make a difference at all to me what digital sound system the theater used as long as they used one of them in the 90s. I remember theaters used to actually take the trouble to mark DTS, Dolby Digital or SDDS for each theater in the newspaper listings. Even if one format was slightly better than the other, in practice, those differences would be less than the variation in one auditorium's superior acoustics and maintenance to another's. SO i never sweat the individual format and just went to the multiplex where I felt they did a better job running the shows.

Now THX certification was important to me in the 90s. Because I knew regardles of whch brand sound system or projector used, the overall presentation had to meet THX standards.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2013, 11:45 AM:

quote:
Steve: is the Sphere logo available in 5.1? I liked the idea of the 7.1 version because it does not work in 5.1 (All....you)!

There is/was a version which only featured the "DOLBY" logo, the "All-Around-You" part is also there, but obviously not as "around" as the 7.1 version.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-26-2013, 01:20 PM:

Back when Dolby Digital had an issue with sound dropouts at the reel changes, I would seek out DTS presentations instead. Once that was resolved, it didn't matter much, even though in my mind I knew that DTS was the superior format, so all other things equal, I would seek out the DTS shows.

While Robert's statement about the content of the movie being paramount in people's minds is true, I agree with Brad's assertion that people consciously or subconsciously know when something is wrong. They may not be able to articulate it, but they form an impression and that impression will affect them when they decide where to see a movie.

In markets where movie theaters are many miles apart, it can be difficult to justify driving an extra half hour or more to go to a better theater, but when you have several theaters within a short distance of each other, then the differentiating factors come into play, and the theaters on the short end of the stick are going to suffer.

I also think that there is a tendency in this industry to discount the ability of the moviegoer to understand and appreciate quality. A casual moviegoer shouldn't be expected to understand all the things that go into a quality presentation, but if these things are pointed out to them with some explanation as to why they are better and how to recognize it, they'll come away with a higher appreciation of the quality presentations and they will also begin to demand it when they decide to spend their money.

Manny's questions are all about the effectiveness of marketing.

Effective branding can definitely sway customer preferences. Too many businesses slap a brand on something and do nothing to educate and inform about the brand - resulting in lackluster results. The theater industry seems compelled to brand everything possible in the hopes of impressing the public that isn't able/willing to find out what it really means. Smoke and mirrors will only get you so far.

If you have two identical theaters, the one that is marketed should always get the larger portion of the customer attention. Why wouldn't it? If people are looking at two otherwise identical choices, they'll choose the one that has some differentiation. Even if they don't know what THX is, the THX-marked theater would likely draw more people because there is a distinction attached to that theater. You'll sway even more people if you educate and inform, and even more than that if the presentations are consistently excellent (this last part is important, because failure to do that will end up backfiring against the marketing and cause a net negative response).

A logo alone isn't going to do much beyond making the artist happy that created it. But backing that logo up with information and then following through with an excellent experience attaches a lot more weight and meaning to that logo and actually makes it mean something. It's amazing to me how many theaters/chains mess this up...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2013, 03:19 PM:

I would say that none of the above mentioned names matter at all any more. The only thing that matters any more is the word Digital.

Dolby, DTS, THX and the lot have reduced themselves to mere ashes of what they once were, they are really just licensing companies any more and no one buying movie tickets cares one iota about them.

What really matters today is on screen presentation, sound and image quality. That can be accomplished with almost any manufacturer's modern equipment in this day and age.

Mark

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2013, 06:27 PM:

Dolby is still around... Dolby might have had the distinct problem of being around everywhere and later becoming almost irrelevant as a distinguished brand when Digital Cinema got hold. But Dolby still has Atmos and their 3D system that offers quite some distinction. Also, it remains the most widely recognized brand and their trailers are still playing in many cinemas around the world.

DTS is no more (at least not in cinema), what remains is Datasat and that's also beyond dead, at least regarding their legacy digital sound system, formerly known as DTS.

We all know the story behind THX, they're now in the licensing sticker selling business. Theaters are no more a focus...

For now, the best branded all-in-one package is, unfortunately, Digital IMAX.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-26-2013, 09:25 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
Manny's questions are all about the effectiveness of marketing.

Just seems to be what the original post is all about:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What in your opinion has/had the most brand or consumer recognition with the customer?

I believe that if you took two identical cinemas and branded one of them, people would indeed be attracted to the branded one and may even perceive it as being better.

My point being that I believe Brad's assertion is only valid up to a point. I believe it breaks down at the threshold where audiences deem a venue to be "good enough." Beyond that, it's going to come down to untrained speculation regarding which of the "good" theatres is "better" or "best." Once we get past the threshold of "good enough," I'd be very interested in knowing the degree to which marketing and subjectivity impact perception, versus facts.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2013, 11:45 PM:

IMAX is the only brand name that resonates with the public in this current day and age (around the legendary era surrounding August 26th, 2013). When people see movies, they think IMAX is absolutely positively the BEST way to see it, bar none. Of course they are wrong, but they're too uninformed and ignorant to know any better or care. Nor are they interested in increasing their movie-going knowledge. They just know the name IMAX and what has been sold to them in regards to that name by marketing. For example, if I play a video game on a movie theater screen, they respond with something like "OMG imagine how that would look and sound in IMAX lol!"

Retards.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-27-2013, 11:16 AM:

^This. But especially this:

quote: Joe Redifer
Of course they are wrong, but they're too uninformed and ignorant to know any better or care. Nor are they interested in increasing their movie-going knowledge.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2013, 02:42 PM:

Well considering the amount of crap that the average person is expected to know and remember these days just to keep their day to day affairs organized, the importance of keeping the cinema alphabet-soup straight is probably not high on people's priority lists.

On the other hand....if I was a standard Joe Blow consumer and I was scanning my local city theater directory, if I saw a cinema with a bunch of "logos" next to the titles I would probably be more drawn to that cinema than to one without the logos, even if I wasn't quite sure what everything meant. I'd just assume that cinema had more up-to-date technology.

I personally can't see the huge appeal of seeing a movie on an Imax screen... not because I wouldn't like the bigger picture, but because about half or more of the seats in the auditorium are going to have a crappy view due to extreme or weird viewing angles. I love the theatrical experience but I've never been overly "drawn" to Imax except for the occasional novelty. If I was paying to see a new blockbuster in Imax I'd worry that I'd get stuck in seats off to one side, near the bottom or whatever and wind up with a stiff neck.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-27-2013, 09:01 PM:

When we are speaking of Dolby, we're talking about over 45 years of experience in the recording industry. It's only been 42 years since Dolby noise reduction was introduced to film with "A Clockwork Orange", so most of Dolby's career was about cinema. Dolby innovated the analog realm as well as the digital realm of film. While Dolby cares about Digital Cinema, 3D, and Atmos today, people think sound when they think of Dolby. The Dolby name is universally known and the simple term "Dolby Digital" is a household name as it is not only an alliteration but a worldwide standard in electronics. I know very few people who know about Dolby Atmos, I know one guy who associates good sound, be it LPCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, or even 5.1 surround itself, as "Dolby Digital." Dolby Atmos just doesn't have muscle yet.

I believe the THX process is a good practice but it's rarely being done today. Today, they are a brand certifying consumer electronics and the theatrical component is slowing down. There are very few theaters that play a THX trailer before a film, let alone THX-certified cinemas themselves. A Joe Blow who spends $5,000 on THX equipment is going to end up with poor sound if he does not treat the room correctly.

IMAX is the buzzword of average people who want something away from their sub-par average experience to a sub-par premium experience. The IMAX setups that tend to live up to what they are supposed to be are the 15/70 setups, but those are dwindling more than THX-certified theaters. IMAX is damaged goods. If you're lucky, you'll get an incredible experience like Inception at Udvar-Hazy Center.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-28-2013, 12:22 PM:

A Clockwork Orange was one of the first (if not the first) movie to use Dolby noise reduction in the production and/or post-production process. However, the original prints were released in standard mono with no Dolby NR.

The British short film A Quiet Revolution (1972) was the first release to feature Dolby noise reduction applied to an optical mono sound track on 35mm film.

Dolby noise reduction was a big deal, not just in terms of movie audio, but also with home stereo systems. I can't recall if 8-track cassette tapes ever supported Dolby NR, but those things were a pain in the ass to use. My parents had a Pontiac LeMans with an 8-track player we used on road trips. I hated punching all sorts of buttons in addition to the fast forwarding and rewinding one had to do to access a particular song. I think younger people are completely spoiled about the instant song access convenience that comes with digital audio. Anyway, the cassette tape format took away all those "sides" that 8-track had. The better quality tape decks also boasted Dolby noise reduction. I didn't like the early implementations of it because I thought it sounded muddy. But it put that Dolby logo all over HiFi gear.

The cassette tape format also did a number on consumer reel to reel tape machines. My dad bought a big Teac reel to reel player when we lived in Iwakuni, Japan. A single, large reel could hold hours of music, but the format wasn't portable at all. Cassette decks could be built into boom boxes or Walkman players. The Dolby logo found its way onto plenty of those devices.

The prominence of IMAX branding is something that really only applies to recent years. And it's a very hollow thing at that. IMAX is nothing like what it used to be. The Dolby brand has been far more visible for far longer.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-28-2013, 02:21 PM:

quote:

Dolby noise reduction was a big deal, not just in terms of movie audio, but also with home stereo systems. I can't recall if 8-track cassette tapes ever supported Dolby NR, but those things were a pain in the ass to use
...
I think younger people are completely spoiled about the instant song access convenience that comes with digital audio. Anyway, the cassette tape format took away all those "sides" that 8-track had. The better quality tape decks also boasted Dolby noise reduction. I didn't like the early implementations of it because I thought it sounded muddy.

I'll bet about 90% of the listening that was done on Dolby-equipped cassette systems was done with the Dolby switched off. Cassettes were capable of pretty good sound, but you had to be using good quality tape. Most pre-recorded cassettes were made on crap tape, so on the average consumer system they sounded better with Dolby turned off. If you made a tape of your own from a good LP, on a good tape deck, using quality tape, and recorded with the right settings, then it would sound too bright and hissy with Dolby off.

Higher-end 8-track recording machines did offer Dolby noise reduction toward the end of the 8-track era, but I don't think any pre-recorded tapes ever had it. Even if they had, they would have suffered from the same problems cassettes did.

quote: Bobby Henderson
My parents had a Pontiac LeMans with an 8-track player we used on road trips. I hated punching all sorts of buttons in addition to the fast forwarding and rewinding one had to do to access a particular song.

8-tracks were not really designed for the person who wanted to listen to specific songs....they were meant for album listeners. If you were "fast forwarding and rewinding" I guarantee you did NOT have an 8-track player in your LeMans, because it's not possible to rewind an 8-track tape.

You are right about today's generation not knowing how lucky they are with the instant access thing. That all happened when CDs came along. I talked to many CD owners over the years who say they've never heard some of the songs on CDs they bought.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2013, 01:12 PM:

My parents definitely did have an 8-track deck in their car. They sold it in 1977 when we moved to Japan. It's been only 30 some odd years since I messed around with one of those decks so the detail about it not being able to rewind was lost on me. And that issue would make the 8-track format suck out loud even worse.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2013, 02:43 PM:

Nothing beat the record players for cars. [Razz]

ARC 2500 car record player installed into car (see next video too)

Better demonstration of the ARC 2500 above (jump to about2:15 for changer action)

One at a time (sort of like today's single cd units)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2013, 02:46 PM:

It became quite the art form, running an 8-track. You would memorize which songs were on which programs, and then if your favorite was Song B, you would know that you had to press the track-switch button three times just at the end of Song A to hear Song B. Then you could press the button twice at the end of Song B to catch the last three minutes of your other favorite, Song C. Oh yeah, I did that dance a lot of times. [Smile]

I'd heard about the record players for cars but never seen one in action, thanks for the links, Brad. I always wondered how they would deal with the size of records...but never thought of them in terms of 45s, just LPs. I'm guessing there was never an LP player for the car....?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-31-2013, 05:14 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
You are right about today's generation not knowing how lucky they are with the instant access thing. That all happened when CDs came along.

That happened when record players with user-movable needles came along. Want to listen to song 3? Just drop the needle on the groove where song 3 starts (from at least 6-8 inches high, record players like that). No need to ever listen to that shitty song 2.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-31-2013, 05:29 PM:

Mike, some people did play larger records. [Wink]

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-31-2013, 05:50 PM:

Brad, those car record players are cool, but I'm worried about the tracking on the needle while the car is moving. Did they have some sort of anti-skating weight? I would prefer listening to a cassette or 8-track in the car rather than a bunch of 7" records.

I too am an album listener. Most of the time I am pretty extreme and listen to the entire album from start to finish as the album is an art form. A collection of songs can have a certain theme, or tell a story, or the flow is just so well that you want to hear the songs in that order. On occasion I go from song to song and that's usually when I don't feel like listening to an album.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2013, 06:49 PM:

The comment on one of those videos says the players were mounted on some kind of shock absorbing system so as not to skip while driving.