Shame on theaters for showing ads
PUSSSYKATT
----------------------------------
SHOW up at a movie and you'll have to watch Craig Kilborn sell Coca-Cola,
Celine Dion shill for Chrysler and Fandango's curlyheaded guy dance with bells
and say, "What do you mean, sold out?" Cash-strapped theater chains have been
showing more ads - and New Yorkers are joining a nationwide chorus of protests.
"I love the previews but the ads drive me insane," says telemarketer Phil
Nugent, 35, "especially because ticket prices keep going up.
"If they shave $2.50 off the admission price, maybe I'll sit through the ads."
That's unlikely, because theaters are counting on ads to pull them back from
the financial brink.
"When people are watching TV at home, they might get up and go to the
refrigerator during the ads," says Kavir Dhar, a media analyst for New York's
Jefferies and Company. "But in the movie theater, nobody's going anywhere."
Consequently, theater chains can charge an average of $25 per 1,000 people, as
opposed to the $11 per 1,000 views for newspapers or the $19 for TV stations.
That means a projected $90 million per year for Regal Theaters alone.
"With money like that," Dhar says, "it's no surprise the industry is moving
toward more pre-show advertising."
Indeed, the film-screen ad industry is projected to grow by 30 percent this
year, says Matthew Kearney, president of the Cinema Advertising Council.
Regal is leading the pack with "The 2wenty," a 20-minute block of pre-show
programming now in 27 metro-area theaters.
The program includes a five-minute "NBC Studio Tour" featuring Jay Leno, David
Spade, and Sean Hayes, a documentary about the Hulk roller coaster at Universal
Studios, and an "Oscar memories" documentary by Turner Classic Movies.
" 'The 2wenty' is advertising disguised as entertainment," Dhar says.
Regal Theaters spokeswoman Lauren Leff says the chain's independent research
found no negative reaction to the promo reel - and that audiences were
overwhelmingly entertained.
Perhaps moviegoers' biggest peeve is the timing: Last month, a Chicago English
teacher filed a lawsuit against Loews for showing ads after the lights go down.
The suit, which seeks class-action status, asks that theaters list the films'
actual starting times or pay up to $75 per patron as "lost time" damages.
Loews calls the suit "ludicrous," but more than 700 moviegoers nationwide -
including more than a dozen New Yorkers - have contacted Portland, Oregon
lawyer Douglas Litowitz asking to be added as plaintiffs.
"We see commercial creep everywhere - ballparks are being named after phone
companies, now movie theaters are showing ads, too," says Litowitz.
"People didn't request them, and they are tremendously angry about it."
There have even been some spontaneous demonstrations.
At a recent weekday matinee of "The Hours" at the Loews 72nd Street, the
audience started booing so loudly at the ads that the projectionist stopped
them.
"It was an absolutely phenomenal protest," says marketing consultant Mimi
Gaber, 33, who was in the audience. "I wish there was more of that."
SEND EMAIL TO PUSSS...@aol.com
AGC FAQ and FUN STUFF
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/mainpages/agcfaq.html
BLIND ITEM REHASH:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/blinditems/mainpage.html
Erin
movie didn't start until 4:35 (commercials plus previews). Add that to a
two hour flick - I felt like I'd run a marathon by the time I left the
theater.
"PUSSSYKATT" <agcgoss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030306084344...@mb-dh.aol.com...
PinkPoppy
to the movies now more than ever. Business is up 10% from last year. And in
this economy that's saying something.
I really disgusted with the commercials. I hope the lawsuit wins. The movie
should start at the time posted.
--
Icebreaker
"PinkPoppy" <PinkPopp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v6fbsj1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Bullshit. The movie industry just released a report stating people are
going
> to the movies now more than ever. Business is up 10% from last year. And
in
> this economy that's saying something.
First of all, I support the lawsuit filed by the Chicago woman, but not for
the reasons listed. The difference between a theater and a television is
that network fare is free, so they are entitled to place as many ads as they
want in their programming. However, if I pay 8 dollars for a movie, i'm
paying for that movie and nothing else. I dont want Britney Spears Pepsi ads
or Tiger Woods Buick ads. If I wanted my movies interrupted by commericals
I'd be waiting for the film to come on television. Someone, somewhere,
should be trying to make the case that the audience is being having their
money essentially stolen from them.
As for business being up 10%, well, yeah, box office revenue has been
generally going upwards for the past 10 years, but so have the costs of the
movies. And because a guaranteed blockbuster is going to cost at least $100
million in production costs alone, you can bet that the studios are pressing
the theater chains to go with less than the customary 50/50 split of box
office receipts. George Lucas strong armed the theaters into an 80/20 split
for the first week or so of The Phantom Menace (don't know what he did for
Attack of the Clones).
The theater chains have also done this to themselves. In Atlanta, the
biggest megaplex right now has 24 screens. But does it offer 24 times the
variety of theater chains 10 to 20 years ago? No, not really. If you are in
a mood for something different and don't want to travel into the city to
find independent or arthouse films, you're out of luck. When SPIDERMAN is on
6 screens in a 24 screen building, you really haven't advanced much from the
days, circa 1980, when the average building had 4 screens and maybe once in
a while a movie would play on a whopping 2 screens!!!
----------------------------------
ICEBREAKER
"Drop the mayonnaise and step away from the Brother."
"It's that colored girl, Tanja."
Ambrose Meineke
Ambrose
Walter Luffman
<PinkPopp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bullshit. The movie industry just released a report stating people are going
>to the movies now more than ever. Business is up 10% from last year. And in
>this economy that's saying something.
Ticket sales are 'way down at theaters owned by one local chain, but
not because of commercials or anything of that sort. The management
failed to do anything about a few patrons who talk (loudly and
profanely) and threaten other theatergoers during performances, so a
lot of people just stopped going to those theaters entirely. I went
to a late-afternoon screening of Spiderman the week after its
premiere; the multiplex had two screens dedicated to the movie, and in
the room where I saw it there were only *two* other people. I
understand attendance was similarly bad for other films that entire
week, but is slowly rising again. (The chain's management swears the
theaters are doing well and they will not have to close or sell any of
them; I'm not completely convinced they're being honest.
Btw, this was not an organized boycott, just bad word-of-mouth about
these theaters.
>I really disgusted with the commercials. I hope the lawsuit wins. The movie
>should start at the time posted.
I agree -- although I wouldn't mind if the commercials ran early and
then the "coming attractions" trailers began at the posted time.
Sometimes the trailers are better than the feature itself, and they're
one way to decide how I'll spend my movie-money next time.
I wonder if people would stay through the closing credits if the
trailers literally trailed -- that is, if the "coming attractions"
previews were shown after the feature instead of before it.
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer