Advertising in movie theatres. A RANT.

[Searyx]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is incorrect. You pay money to see the movie. Nothing more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So there shouldn't be commercials?

...what?

Your reply has no logical connection to what I wrote. The fact that you don't pay for commercials has no bearing on whether there should or should not be commercials.

[ShamusChad]

Lol, statistics like that are funny...

First, is the movie going population going down, or viewers per film...2-3 times more movies are released to theatres every year, meaning there is more selection for a shrinking movie going population.

Of these movies being released, most stink...they receive bad reviews and only get attendance through hype (XXX). They "break records" without taking into account inflation of ticket prices. IE- ET made a lot of money... Lord of the Rings made a lot of money also (However, the tickets prices increased by at least 1 dollar). Is this change in price taken into account or is it mearly a ploy by the media industry to fool us into believing their films are worth seeing? (Everyone is, LOOK AT THE SALES!! yea right..)

The media companies try and save themselves by creating NEW technology...DVD players, CD Burners (since this is the same deal with the music industry)... Sony makes DVD players...Sony makes....etc to milk losses from frustrated movie goers who are forced to see ads because they also screw the theatres (that they either own, or essentially control). We seeing a trend? Sales are failing? Make shitty movies for the brain-dead (people who enjoy advertisements? Or don't mind them?)... shitty movies not bringing in the viewers? Make it easier to stay at home and watch quality pictures.

The only people who care in this cycle are MAYBE 1) Theatre owners, 2) Movie goers who actually care about the quality of films 3) Average Joe who just wants to see a film withou the bullshit.

In the end, there is no out for the movie making industry. They can't complain sales are declining, because in other sectors that they control the profits are increasing.

Advertisements are not necessary.

[Chumley]

I like cheese.

[Millie]

Originally posted by Muuru
Millie, the point about ticket prices not making the movie theatres anything could just as easily be turned around into saying that the snacks make them nothing, all the snack profits go towards costs of running the place. Or are you saying that the silver city near me has to pay $13 to whichever movie company made a given move per person that sees it, and the theatre on the other end of town only pays $8.50? My point was this: The movie theatres needed/wanted to make more money. There were two ways they could do this. Number one, they could raise their prices either on snacks, or tickets, or BOTH. Number two, they could put ads SOMEWHERE. Sorta like how more and more websites are getting popup windows. Don't like those windows? Start writing checks to the people running the sites, beecause not everyone has the money to just hand out bandwidth.

Muuru, you still don't get it. Movie theaters don't take ANY income from tickets sold. All of that money goes to the studios who make and distribute the movies. The theaters' only sources of income are from selling refreshments and selling in-house advertisements. Whether they 'make money' or not off of these things is irrelevent to the point I was making; the fact remains, theaters CANNOT make a dime off ticket sales, because they never see any of that revenue.

Thus, the only ways theater owners can increase revenue are twofold:

a) sell ads
b) raise snack prices -- which, if they go much higher, would scare off more business than it would bring in

Because it's not very feasible to raise snack prices much higher without scaring off business, the theaters have resorted to selling advertisement space.

I'm not arguing in favor of this system or against it. I'm simply explaining why it exists. Before I had, most people on this thread seemed confused or misguided as to how the theater business worked.

[Millie]

Originally posted by ShamusChad
Lol, statistics like that are funny...

First, is the movie going population going down, or viewers per film...2-3 times more movies are released to theatres every year, meaning there is more selection for a shrinking movie going population.

Of these movies being released, most stink...they receive bad reviews and only get attendance through hype (XXX). They "break records" without taking into account inflation of ticket prices. IE- ET made a lot of money... Lord of the Rings made a lot of money also (However, the tickets prices increased by at least 1 dollar). Is this change in price taken into account or is it mearly a ploy by the media industry to fool us into believing their films are worth seeing? (Everyone is, LOOK AT THE SALES!! yea right..)

The media companies try and save themselves by creating NEW technology...DVD players, CD Burners (since this is the same deal with the music industry)... Sony makes DVD players...Sony makes....etc to milk losses from frustrated movie goers who are forced to see ads because they also screw the theatres (that they either own, or essentially control). We seeing a trend? Sales are failing? Make shitty movies for the brain-dead (people who enjoy advertisements? Or don't mind them?)... shitty movies not bringing in the viewers? Make it easier to stay at home and watch quality pictures.

The only people who care in this cycle are MAYBE 1) Theatre owners, 2) Movie goers who actually care about the quality of films 3) Average Joe who just wants to see a film withou the bullshit.

In the end, there is no out for the movie making industry. They can't complain sales are declining, because in other sectors that they control the profits are increasing.

Advertisements are not necessary.

You made perfect sense up until that last sentence. I'll clarify once more:

Theaters are not the same thing as movie studios. Movie studios in the United States legally cannot own and operate theaters. Thus, anything theaters do to raise profits is entirely independent of the movie studios.

Advertisements in front of movies are organized and run entirely by individual theater owners. They have nothing to do with the movie studios, and everything to do with the fact that theater owners need a new source of income to cover increasing costs.

In brief:

1) Studios make movies, then distribute them. The studio distributing a movie charges a fee to every theater that wants to run its particular movie.

2) Theaters purchase movies from the distributors. The costs of doing so are rapidly increasing. That is, distributors are charging more and more for the privilege of showing their films.

3) Theaters' only source of positive cash flow is the sale of refreshments -- which was a fine way to make money before distributors started jacking up costs. Nowadays, selling snacks can't cover those rising costs as well as it used to. Some new source of income had to be invented.

4) Theaters' solution: local advertisements. By selling ad space, theater owners can help boost revenue to cover the costs of operation, and hopefully turn at least some profit.

It comes down to this: if you think advertisements are unnecessary, then suggest a reasonable alternative. Explain precisely how you think theaters can increase revenue without selling ads.

[Muuru]

As I asked you millie, are you telling me that theatres are charged per-viewer? And, this being the case, are they charged less during the day, and on tuesdays, than any other day? And again, are some theatres charged less per-viewer than others? Or are you indicating that because movie theatres are generally run somewhere down the line of company owns company, by production companies, the ticket revenues just go to them? If that's the case, the logic kinda falls apart, I'm *certain* that the reason why silver city charges $13.50 for me to see a movie there, is because the place is absolutely massive, the theatres have stadium seating etc, and it cost them an assload to build and much more to maintain. That being the case, NONE of that $13.50 goes into the theatre itself according to you, so then, why doesn't silver city charge $8.50 or $9 like everywhere else, and then just charge me $10 for a bag of popcorn?(hint: $10 for a bag of popcorn is sarcasm, PLEASE do not respond to that, sarcasm is lost on the internet...) That's what confuses me about what you're saying. If some production company shows up each week with a briefcase, asking for the revenues from ticket sales, why do some theatres charge more/less than others? What would be the point?

Edit: The misconceptoin about this that I was referring to, by saying that you could say the snacks make the money, is this: If you owe someone $10, and I owe you $20, let's say I give you $10 on monday and then $10 on tuesday, and you don't pay your friend back until thursday. Now, if you'd deposited the total of $20 I gave you to your bank account, how would you say *which* $10 that I gave you you used to pay your friend back? When you look at it that way, it doesn't make much sense does it? All I'm saying is that unless movie theatres are required to send 100% of ticket sales money off to the studio/distribution company, saying that the money we pay for our tickets doesn't turn over into profit is like saying that you used the $10 from tuesday to pay your friend back, NOT the $10 from monday.(this is what I was referring to saying that you could say the snacks paid for everything, tickets are where they make the profit...)

[Actovus]

If what you say is true, we would of always have seen ads at the movies. But that isn't the case. It's a very recent problem that hasn't really bothered me until now. It's getting out of hand and ridiculous. There should be a limit to the time given to play ads at the very least. 15 minutes of commercials is pushing don't you think?

I do.

[Searyx]

There should be a limit to the time given to play ads at the very least. 15 minutes of commercials is pushing don't you think?

Give me one good reason why the theaters should put a cap on commercial lengths.

[Millie]

Originally posted by Actovus
If what you say is true, we would of always have seen ads at the movies. But that isn't the case. It's a very recent problem that hasn't really bothered me until now. It's getting out of hand and ridiculous. There should be a limit to the time given to play ads at the very least. 15 minutes of commercials is pushing don't you think?

I do.

a) What I say is true.

b) ALL of my posts have indicated that this was a recent problem. I'm not sure how you read or inferred from my posts that I said this was anything but.

c) I don't think anyone disagrees that these commercials are annoying. No one's arguing against that point of view. But they're necessary for theaters to stay in business. In time they will find different ways to bring in money, and you won't have to endure 15 minutes of commercials. But for now, we're all going to have to sit through them; we might as well understand why.

[Millie]

Originally posted by Muuru
As I asked you millie, are you telling me that theatres are charged per-viewer? And, this being the case, are they charged less during the day, and on tuesdays, than any other day? And again, are some theatres charged less per-viewer than others? Or are you indicating that because movie theatres are generally run somewhere down the line of company owns company, by production companies, the ticket revenues just go to them? If that's the case, the logic kinda falls apart, I'm *certain* that the reason why silver city charges $13.50 for me to see a movie there, is because the place is absolutely massive, the theatres have stadium seating etc, and it cost them an assload to build and much more to maintain. That being the case, NONE of that $13.50 goes into the theatre itself according to you, so then, why doesn't silver city charge $8.50 or $9 like everywhere else, and then just charge me $10 for a bag of popcorn?(hint: $10 for a bag of popcorn is sarcasm, PLEASE do not respond to that, sarcasm is lost on the internet...) That's what confuses me about what you're saying. If some production company shows up each week with a briefcase, asking for the revenues from ticket sales, why do some theatres charge more/less than others? What would be the point?

Edit: The misconceptoin about this that I was referring to, by saying that you could say the snacks make the money, is this: If you owe someone $10, and I owe you $20, let's say I give you $10 on monday and then $10 on tuesday, and you don't pay your friend back until thursday. Now, if you'd deposited the total of $20 I gave you to your bank account, how would you say *which* $10 that I gave you you used to pay your friend back? When you look at it that way, it doesn't make much sense does it? All I'm saying is that unless movie theatres are required to send 100% of ticket sales money off to the studio/distribution company, saying that the money we pay for our tickets doesn't turn over into profit is like saying that you used the $10 from tuesday to pay your friend back, NOT the $10 from monday.(this is what I was referring to saying that you could say the snacks paid for everything, tickets are where they make the profit...)

Muuru,

I never said anything to the effect that theaters were charged per viewer. Again, this is a case of people putting words into my mouth and/or misinterpreting what I've been trying to say.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: THEATERS ARE REQUIRED TO SEND THE MONEY THEY RECEIVE FROM TICKET SALES TO THE DISTRIBUTOR OF THE MOVIE. It may not be "100%" (that's a figure I first used to make a point), but it's certainly around 98 - 99% at best.

I am well aware of what you are saying about accounting for exactly what money goes where. Yes, the 1 or 2% that theaters do keep (and believe me, even that is a very generous estimate) can be considered revenue. But in practice, that revenue goes to covering operations costs (which is why bigger theaters charge more for admission). As does a certain percentage of snack sales, ad sales, etc. But once all is said and done, the majority of profits (note the separate definitions of "revenue" and "profit") have traditionally come from snack sales. It's just the way the movie-theater business works. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not; that's just how it is. I didn't write the rules.

Now, you certainly don't have to take my word for it. You can look this information up if you want to try to prove me wrong or right. But at least make some attempt to gather the facts before questioning what I'm saying here.

P.S. - Please don't think I'm mad at you, or attempting to flame you, etc. Believe me, I'm not. I just feel as though I've had to explain this system over and over again on the thread. I'm getting exhausted. ^_^

[Muuru]

Don't worry millie, I didn't think you were mad at all. So basically the distributors charge a % of ticket sales then? The way I thought it worked was just that the theatres were charged X amount to have the reels, and it turned out that that generally worked out to the ticket sales. I guess what I'm wondering is, how can the 1% the theatres do get to keep be worth it(1% of even the $13.50 silver city charges is only 13 cents, even 10,000 tickets sold only works out to just over $1000)? Couldn't a theatre just charge $1 for a ticket, charge a little extra on snacks, and make loads more money due to the fact that they'll have 10x the attendance rates of anywhere else?

[Millie]

It doesn't matter what theaters charge for tickets, because they have to turn over something like 99% of their ticket sales revenue to the distributors. This system would work the same way whether they charged $1 or $100 per ticket.

Distributors 'sell' their film reels to the theater for a fairly high fee. But most of their money is made through the ticket sales. That's how movie companies earn their keep. Whenever you hear about a film like Spider-Man making a killing at the box office, it's not the theaters themselves that reap the benefits. It's the studios who made and distributed Spider-Man. Of the movie's $115 million or so nationwide opening weekend take, about $114 million went directly to Sony Pictures, Inc. The theaters showing the movie benefitted from its popularity only inasmuch as higher theater attendance usually translates to more food and beverages sold.

[ShamusChad]

Hmm, maybe I should have said, ads shouldn't be necessary. I think that's what I meant when I wrote it

Either way, I'd be happy if the movies I attend start at the designated time. Play all the commercials you want, but at 7PM you better start showing previews. I don't think that is asking for much.

[Szlia]

Silly question but: do the theatres buy or rent the film copies?

On a side note, I think in france (maybe only one theatre owner does that though) they display both the time at which the projection starts (with adds then previews there too) and the time at which the movie itself starts.

[Actovus]

Millie, I understand what you are saying now. I wasn't clear before. I think we have a understanding. I know we do in light of your post about obnoxious behavior in a similiar thread.

Searyx.

Give me one good reason why the theaters should put a cap on commercial lengths.

My convenience. People make plans around events. Add 15+ commercials, 15 minutes of previews and the movies have now become a 3 hour event. Let's not forget the slideshows before the curtains goes up. That is a lot of "added revenue" for the theatre. You know what, I have no problem with that at all. But for the longest time, when that curtain went up, it meant the show was starting. (previews are part of the show IMO). Now when that curtain goes up, I have to sit through stupid, boring commercials and listen to idiots laugh at them. It reminds me of chimps being amused with crayons. It IS getting out of hand.