Movie Theater Research Central

Co-ops and Numbers

2006-11-26T03:34:00.000-08:00

So a quick update -- over the last three months, I have: quit my job at Google, Spent approximately 1.25 months on vacation in Europe, moved to Hawaii, interned with the Hawaii International Film Festival, started working on a construction site as a laborer, and finally done the thing I came here to do... I've worked two nights as an employee of a real, live, multiplex.

The Ko'olau 10, to be exact.

And for a while, I thought, I'd be too busy with my 3 jobs to contribute anything meaningful to my blog of blogs. BUT after two nights at the job I've always wanted, I had to post about two things I was thinking about.

1.) I think movie theaters would support a FANTASTIC co-op variant. Maybe.

I've probably mentioned the idea of a co-op movie theater before, because it tends agree with my liberal communist slant :). But my current vision of it is really just an incremental change to the current system that would benefit two parties that really have a stake in the movie theater's success.

So, after 2 days of working in the concessions booth, I have to say, I'm blown away by the beauty of the efficiency machine that sits behind the counter. There's never any downtime, there's always cleaning, sweeping or restocking to be done. When the rush comes, people are working in super-adjustable, minimal bureaucracy style to pump orders out efficiently and accurately. And the whole theater is like this. More importantly, it has to be this way, because it's the only way, the operation is able to turn a profit. Concessions have to sell. They have to sell in volume, and they have to sell for large profit margins.

As an employee of Consolidated Theaters, the benefits are a frequent movie-goer's dream (I should know). Free Movies for you and up to 3 friends and HALF off concessions!

This got me to thinking, wouldn't it be rather natural to have people that come to the movies every week, work and multiply their productivity in the amazing movie theater machine, rather than pay the marginally helpful ticket fee every week? The benefits are numerous

- it could help keep operations costs down if people could play a limited role and only receive movie benefits
- the community as a whole would have a better understanding of and relationship with the operation of the theater which, I hypothesize, would increase either loyalty or attendance
- the full time, or more permanent employees, would have more meaningful work as managers, and coordinators of the benefits-only employees, and would spend their time retuning the machine, while...
- ...spreading around the occasional tedium of operating the machine
- solutions to problems would have a natural customer service orientation since they would all be customers
-there's a growth track for both employees of the theater and patrons of the theater (who can grow into benefit-employees, and even full time employees if they want). Allowing for growth seems to be a good key for customer retention.

I actually came across this idea while discussing the Hawaii International Film Festival operation. We were talking about volunteer shortages, and it had been suggested that we take volunteers from the people standing in line. I had already thought converting patrons into volunteers would help add a new and interesting dynamic for the long time festival supporters that would also help them understand our problems.

Same kind of thing here, but in a lot of ways, even better. People like me, who go to the movies a lot, eventually start looking for ways to cut costs. One can't sustain 10 dollar movies, 10 dollar snacks 2 or three times a week on normal working class salary. So things like theater hopping, sneaking food in, etc all start becoming the only way to deepen (so to speak) and add sophisticatication one's relationship with the theater.

The only problem would be to enforce the quality standards, training, and incentives that are inherent in a paying employee contractual relationship. But that's where you can turn to the beauty of the corporate number crunching machine. If the machine is just modified to suit this purpose, I think it could easily accomodate benefits-only employees.

It might only be me, and in reality, there may be very few people who are actually interested in saving 15 dollars a week by putting in an hour at the concessions stand. But it may open up a whole new market of customers who have outgrown the theater or are just tired of paying the money and have found ways like netflix to cut costs.

Philosophically, I also think it's important for businesses to run like this. Eventually, the ones running the places, shouldn't be the ones who do it for the money, but the ones who actually like doing it. This is a good way to start bridging the gap for the movie-lovers to make their way over to becoming movie operators.

2.) In a previous blog entry, I speculated about some keeping set of statistical measurements much like the ones John Hollinger of ESPN keeps for NBA players. Well, I found out that multiplexes DO in fact keep awesome numbers like this. They record fascinating things like, the number of patrons that show up per employee hour worked, concession sales per ticket sold, etc. All rather logical things from the perspective of running an efficient business, and all rather effective in incentivizing the things that will make the theater use it's resources efficiently to turn the largest profit.

What was missing (at least from what I've seen so far) are the counterbalancing statistics. The ones that focus on the customer satisfaction side, and prevent unfettered pursuit of the profit calculating numbers. Stuff like, amount of time a customer spent waiting in line. Accuracy of order. Satisfaction with purchase, etc. With the right set of numbers, you could just start optimizing the hell out of them with the operation, and still get all the important things right. Keeping the business alive, while still fulfilling the purpose of having the service in the first place.

So much Business yet to be done!

2006-08-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

Box-office bounty stirs deals
go to original article

""Seventy-five percent of the revenue comes from the weekend," Mr. Brown said. His recent initiatives are attempts to address the question: "Is there a way with price that you can create opportunity, a new market?""

This is the question that first got me thinking about how movie theaters run. Or I suppose, it was this question's inverse/evil twin which goes something like:

"All these seats are empty on tuesday afternoons. What a waste! Wait, why am I paying full price for this?"

So, it certainly makes intuitive sense from the consumer side that there's room for a new market based on a new pricing structure.

But after a couple of years of thinking about it, I don't think it's true. There's certainly some amount of inefficiency that is inherent in most theater businesses. They only fill to capacity under very specific conditions. The rest of the time, a lot of them go unused.

But the reality is, the rest of that space can't really be used for the same kind of stuff during the rest of the day. Society revolves around a set of fairly rigid schedules, that are pretty much inflexible. The 9 to 5 workday pretty much accounts for most people's productivity time (including people who work at home). There's just this implicit contract that everyone is going to conduct productive business at this time. 6 to 10 and weekends and holidays is entertainment time. Period.

Until recently, the amount of business that was able to be done during the entertainment hours was plenty fine. But with the current competition for those entertainment hours, the dedicated entertainment spaces can't get it done anymore.

So is there something else that the big spaces can be used for during the daytime? Not that I can think of. Company meetings are not consistent enough, or there are already other resources devoted to that kind of thing within the company. It might be nice to use a public venue like a movie theater for conducting meetings or trainings, but it's just not suited for the task. Think of trying to watch a movie in a company conference room. It works, it's kinda fun for a while, but in the end, it's not that comfortable and it doesn't feel right.

Movie theaters are designed to evoke certain emotions, and productivity is not among them.

And if you think about the other entertainment spaces that are really successful right now, their hallmark is their multi use. Home Theaters that double as living rooms. PCs that double as everything.

I suspect there needs to be some push towards efficiency (if you can call it that) of this nature: making theaters that can totally transform during the day into some other useful venue.

Newsflash: Kids Bored!

2006-08-08T00:22:00.000-07:00

Fun Isn't Fun Enough for Teens
go to original article

The LA Times (two stories in the last two days) has been making a lot of noise about a recent poll that showed a couple of noteworthy things about teens. They don't particularly like to go to the movie theater. Their interest dwindles as they get older, and they like to multitask (see a nice graphical summary here)

With regard to the last bit, it seems to have brought up a little concern about the negative impact it might be having on our

Another concern for adults is multi-tasking. For the most part, experts have not looked closely at how teens' and young adults' thinking skills, especially when it comes to homework, may be affected by what one software executive has dubbed "constant partial attention."

This is very similar to the zombie epidemic that swept America when people first started trying to do their homework and watch TV at the same time 30 years ago. Or the dip in number of intellectuals suffered in the 1920s when they started selling concessions at the theaters and people would actually attempt to eat and watch movies at the same time.

It's shocking to me that this comes up so frequently. I suppose it's because people aren't familiar with the technologies that "kids these days" are using, or something, that makes everyone so panicky and... insightless. Kids are the same now, as they have been for a bazillion years: easily distracted. This part here, hits it on the head:

"It's like being in a candy store," said Gloria Mark, a UC Irvine professor who studies interactions between people and computers. "You aren't going to ignore the candy; you are going to try it all."

Kids have always been in candy stores. Before there was the internet, there were malls (just ask Kevin Smith). And TV. There have always been places to excite kids who want to try it all.

Movie theaters used to be a place where you could try it all. Adventure, travel, love, sex, fun, friends, popcorn without butter, popcorn with butter... Maybe people are reaching for an explanation that doesn't make them look stupid for not having seen this coming all along. "Kids these days are totally unpredictable! They like to multitask! Who ever heard of that?! There was no way to plan for this!"

Texting seems to be the en vogue way for theaters to get back into the mix. Mark Cuban mentioned it in his response about the rock and roll movie theater and head of MTV films David Gale mentioned it in the second LA Times article about this same poll. Presumably, this is because it's the least disruptive way for people to use their portable devices in the middle of a quiet movie theater. The fact that phone companies will charge the same 15 dollars for unlimited text messages as they do for unlimited data transfer speaks to its popularity.

I can attest to wanting to use my phone to look up actors while in a movie, or jot down notes (to myself). A screen dimmer would definitely help the cause. But, I digress. Whether or not incorporating people's texting into movie theaters will change kids' regard for theaters remains to be seen. I don't see it competing with the flexibility of sitting at home on the internet. Unless they become internet cafes... which, come to think of it, is how they do it in Bangkok.

Patent me a Donut

2006-08-08T00:16:00.000-07:00

Patent Reform Act Proposes Sweeping Changes:

"Geccie writes 'CNet is reporting that Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch have proposed sweeping changes in the patent system in the form of the Patent Reform Act of 2006. Key features are the ability to challenge (postgrant opposition) with the Senate version being somewhat broader and better than the house version.' From the article: 'Specifically, it would shift to a 'first to file' method of awarding patents, which is already used in most foreign countries, instead of the existing 'first to invent' standard, which has been criticized as complicated to prove. Such a change has already earned backing from Jon Dudas, chief of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.'

In case I haven't mentioned it, I'm an advocate of Intellectual Property (some refer to it as Information Policy) rights reform. I think the copyright and patent systems should be restructured.

My rather uniformed opinion is that the processes as they are now, do not seem to encourage and reward innovation as much as they create semi-arbitrary rules for the entities with the most power to play by.

From the perspective of how exhibitors and distributors could be more flexible, I think copyrights should be devalued and things should enter the public domain more quickly. To be honest, I don't know much about patents. Ironically, I filed for one (with a group) last quarter, and it seemed the only point was as a protection against someone trying to take advantage of the system.

In any event, none of this seems terribly relevant to the legislation that's being proposed. I just think it's generally a good thing, that this is an issue on people's minds. I had been worried that this was something that would never change.

Ding!

2006-08-04T15:10:00.000-07:00

Movie Theater's New 'Complaint' Button
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Loud talking, chair kicking and other movie-theater annoyances may soon be a thing of the past, thanks to a new device similar to the flight attendant call button on airplanes.

Moviegoers at the Regal Deer Valley Cinema complex are testing devices that will alert a theater employee when a fellow patron is behaving badly.

Instead of searching the theater lobby for an employee or fuming silently, the "guest response system" enables people to subtly tell on their neighbors from the comfort of their own seats."

I love it. It's a simple fix, that if deployed correctly, can cut right to the people who actually care about these things.

I don't know if these are intended to be installed in seats (I hope not - they'd be rife with abuse from some of the people patrons complain about) but if a patron can choose to pick one of these up at the lobby, or the door of the theater, I think it would go a long way towards silencing some of the most common complaints.

I've always felt like the people who complain about things like cell phones, the people they sit next to, and other things related to the experience are a vocal minority. And on top of that, they're complaining about a few instances that are by no means representative of the majority of moviegoing.

Now, if they have a venue for voicing their complaints (provided, they actually get dealt with), I think people will begin to speak more reasonably about it. It's the feeling of being trapped and helpless that is the biggest contributor, here, I think. If there's actually something that can be done, people might decide that it's worth it to tolerate whatever minor annoyance rather than go through the trouble of picking up a radio device at the box office.

Additionally, I like the idea of a way for people to notify the projectionist about things like sound and focus. I know that I always care about these things (but never want to leave my seat and miss part of the movie). Very sensible. What more can you ask for.

There are a lot of ways to go with this. Obviously cell phones are like a dirty word in theaters, but being able to use any device (i.e. text messaging) to notify the theater about problems would be nice. It might even be workable with proper signage around the theater lobby.

Multiplex Labs

2006-08-02T01:34:00.000-07:00

Reading Mark Cuban's response to his own call for suggestions on how to make going to the movies better has renewed my interest in an idea that I tossed around a few months back (but I don't think I ever included in my blog).

At one point, I thought this might be an interesting way to see if it would make more people go to the movies, but I don't think the difference in price will actually make it so that attendance is affected significantly.

But anyway, the idea is this: What if everything about a movie-going experience was sold at a variable price. The quality of the movie, the time, the distance you sat from the screen, the amount of time you actually sat in the movie. Even if this idea didn't serve to bring in more people, I think it would be totally interesting to see answers to the following:

-if people could pro-rate their experience would they cut their losses during movies they didn't like and try a different movie?
-if people could exercise more control over their situations, would they generally be happier?
-would the selections of the people in this setting be a truer indicator of box office success (or maybe DVD sales projections) than current metrics?
-would the pricing for movies that people walked out of halfway through eventually eat into ticket sales that are currently sunk costs when people walk in the door?

(I suppose another interesting extension of this would be to find a way to tally a box office figure minus the people who would have wanted their money back - maybe the intersection of people who watched the movie, but didn't buy the dvd, or the people who bought the dvd, but then sold it -- come to think of it, that's a really good idea. Do people track this? This could probably be done more accurately by selling DVDs along with the movie.)

Just to note, this would be very hard (but very cool) to set up. I envision a card reader in every seat that marks your personal data-card of some sort with all of the day's viewing history. This info would be useful for countless other things... I must have written about this before.

If I ever get to be in charge of a theater, the mad scientist in me just might make a showing.

Mark Cuban's Movie Theater Challenge

2006-07-26T21:57:00.000-07:00

Me and 600+ other people over the last 3 days thought it would be cool to come up with responses to the challenge Mark Cuban posted on his blog . It's hard to see how my response -- despite it's tremendously high quality :) -- won't get lost in a sea of 700 other comments, (or even to see if my response didn't just repeat suggestions that were already made), but I have faith in Mark Cuban's ability to go through all those emails. I have heard he's extremely devoted to reading Mavs fan emails, so I trust him to take this challenge seriously, and read all the suggestions.

I've included my complete response (which I clipped when I added it to the comments on the blog post) below.

Of course, there are a lot of suggestions like, cheaper movies, cheaper concessions, easier parking, better access, etc, that as a frequent moviegoer, I would love to see. However, the reality of those suggestions, are that they won't _bring_ more people into the theater. They'll just make the people that are already going happy. And those people (people like me), unfortunately, well, they're already there, so they're not who you're interested in.

My guess is that you want to figure out how to get people to come to the specialty/limited run films that landmark shows.

-So, let's start with the broad question, "what's fun about going to the movies?" Even for adults, catching a movie with all your friends is still a reason to get out of the house. Adults even have the added dimension of wanting to discuss (and maybe scream about a movie for hours after it's over, which is another need that a specialty venue can serve). It's fun to a go a movie in a group, so find a way to crank up the peer pressure. Find a way to tap into a social network (a small myspace group, for example) and let them know exactly when and where they can go to a movie. If one friend wants to go, make sure that the other friends have an easy way of knowing about it (link his ticket purchase to a broad text message/email and give him a discount for inviting more people rather than charging extra for a convenience purchase) (on a related note, I feel strongly that this service should be provided by the theater itself, since it can directly help other revenue streams and does not need extra money to stand on it's own, making it a win for everyone and cutting out an expensive third party)

-Organize special screenings a little after the fact, or when the DVD comes out. With specialty movies, the news can come around kind of late, so let people encourage each other to see the movie, and then show it when enough people commit. (booking movies on demand shouldn't (technically) be a problem since all your screens are digital)

-Boost DVD sales for a movie by screening it when the DVD comes out. piggyback on the dvd marketing, and let people try watching the movie before they commit to buying it. sort of a watch to own program (especially in light of the recent report that 80% of people that watched a movie said they were likely to buy a DVD of the same movie).

-Offer people small discounts on tickets on an irregular basis. Nothing is more irresistable than cashing in on a coupon, no matter how insignificant it is. My girlfriend found out that she can buy AMC tickets in pairs at costco for 7.50 and now she wants to go to a movie every week (as opposed to me having to drag her every week). People are totally irrational when it comes to coupons.

-Also, get people to commit to coming to the movie the instant they're interested and hear about it. If they see a trailer they like, offer them a 10 dollar ticket for 8 dollars if they put down 2 dollars up front. People will be much less likely to flake on the movie even if they forgot about what they liked about the trailer, because of that minimal investment. It doesn't even have to be a sneaky thing to do. You can just tell people straight up "we really want you to see this movie, so we're trying to get you to commit to it so you don't forget how much you want to see it" I think people will be happy they did.

-Speaking of that, give people a flawless way of keeping track of the movies they want to see, and alerts when the time comes for the movie. (this ties in great with the social networking component of this). Use pictures. People do a lot of work to make really enticing posters, and all it takes is a glance to remember why you wanted to see something (something I've learned from years of DVD shopping). Then pile on the small inexpensive incentives and remove some of the uncomfortable barriers, and it's hard to refuse.

-Put together some continuity in the films you present. Going to the movies can be addictive, so tap into that. Start with an arena rocker like Inconvenient truth, and then follow up with Who killed the electric car, (hell, you might even be able to sell people on "the Day after tomorrow" after they see Gore's movie), the book every other eco-documentary you can think of after you've gotten them hooked.

-Occassionally throw in some movies that take place locally. People are totally narcissistic when it comes to their hometowns. I went to the San Francisco International Film Festival this year, there was a line around the block for a movie about people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. And the show was at 2:00 in the afternoon on a monday.

If you're interested in the more traditional multiplex/teen demographic (some of this applies to the sophisticated art film watching adults too, though) here are a couple of other ideas. I heard somewhere that if you want to innovate, don't ask people what they want, watch what they do. I just got back from the San Diego Comiccon (for the first time) and two things were utterly clear to me. There are two things the people can't get enough of

-seeing cool secret sh*t
-seeing famous people

-The preshows that have replaced the terrible TV ads are actually a pretty good start. Now they should really step it up and throw in a random selection of totally secret trailers, and just blindside people. Remember when people bought tickets to wing commander and then walked out after they saw the trailer for Star Wars Ep 1? People still
really love that stuff (at least the geeky kids do, and if the movies are good enough, everybody will become a geek). Make a showing that's entirely, cool, secret stuff. Really high quality stuff that will not translate well to a camcorded internet jpeg. I'd even stoop so low as to stir up celebrity gossip about the movie stars in the movies you came to watch. People who watch the movies are really interested in the people in those roles. It's a fine line, because star bios can be totally boring or very trite, so it really needs to be worth the look.

-And then get the famous people to actually show up. I used to go to this theater in Palo Alto, because sometimes I'd see Stanford Basketball players there (lame, I know). But it's irresistable. Get the Mavs to hang out at the theater. Even if people don't know who Dirk Nowitzki is (god forbid) they'll know they're witnessing something special if they's standing in a popcorn line behind a 7 foot german giant. You could probably even get them to work the concessions stand. I know that stuff is usually reserved for soup kitchens and charity work, but I know every time I hear kobe was at some charity event, I find myself wishing I was really poor.

-And down a totally different path, if your goal is just to spread awareness of films that you're showing through your circuit or producing at 2929/Magnolia, I would suggest frachising out the movie theater running experience. It seems like everyone is a movie buff, and those people can make a huge difference in the distribution potential of films (ala gladwell's tipping point). Also, lots of people have amazing home theater setups that are not getting maximal use that would make great community resources. If people had a way of securing permission to screen movies theatrically with minimal hassle (and maybe alleviate security concerns for showing movies at their houses :) ), I think a lot of people would be interested in running their own little movie theaters.

Stuff I'd like to see the Bigwigs answer.

2006-07-25T17:09:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, I'm going to a fancy roundtable event about Digital Cinema. Here's the lineup:

Speakers:
Randal Kleiser, President, Randel Kleiser Productions, Inc.; Director, Grease, The Blue Lagoon, Honey I Blew Up the Kid, Lovewrecked
Bob Lambert, Sr. Vice President, Worldwide Technology Strategy The Walt Disney Company
Tim Partridge, Sr. Vice President and General Manager, Dolby Professional Division, Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Jerry Pierce, Senior Vice President, Technology, Universal Pictures
Todd Wagner, CEO, 2929 Entertainment

Moderator:
Scott Kirsner, Editor, CinemaTech; Columnist and Contributing Writer, Fast Company, The Boston Globe, The Hollywood Reporter

Dinner is a $70.00 affair, so I figure to get my money's worth, I'd like to see if the architects of the digital age of cinema have answers for any of the following questions:

-What should we expect for the smaller theaters to do?
Are they expected to participate in the digitization of movie presentation. If they can't afford to buy new equipment, at what point will they no longer be able to use film reels. Will this not be an issue because of timing?

-Do you think the exclusivity deals for certain distributors will relax at all if the copies are no longer a commodity?
I have heard of a lot of vicious legal entanglements regarding large theater chains trying to flex their booking power and engage in anticompetitive measures to make sure that nearby theaters can't show other big draw films. I understand that physical availability of films is not always the issue, but will a spirit of free availability come along with digital film distribution?

-Will there be any assistance for smaller theaters that want to convert to digital, or is the focus with larger theaters?
Is there any information about how large a percentage of the exhibition industry is made up of indpendent 1 and 2 screen operators and how the digital transition will affect them?

-Is there any thought to making films available for "semi-theatrical" release?
Digital prints make the possibility of "in between" businesses a compelling reality if the licensing standards play along. Smaller, home theater type setups could be used to make small auditoriums and come up with local exhibition businesses, but I don't think they're feasible given the current costs, and state of technology. Digital distribution has the potential to alleviate this. Are Resolution standards the issue? What are the problems (such as piracy etc) , with such a model and what can distributors now enforce because of the digital nature of the prints?

On a totally unrelated note, today I learned what a political action committee was. An important part of the political machines that seems like the "enforcer" behind nudging congressmen into the "right" political decisions (where money equals muscle).

It seems like a rather blunt instrument for my specific concerns at this point. I may be more interested in the groups that are actually structuring legislation and studying the effects of copyright law, rather than the arm that actually earns votes for it. Maybe at a later stage in my career :)

How to make money by giving Movies away!

2006-07-14T02:34:00.000-07:00

Poll Shows Moviegoers Are Big DVD Buyers

A poll of moviegoers indicates that 83 percent of those who see ten or more movies per year in theaters also "frequently" or "sometimes" buy the DVD of many of the same movies, the New York Times reported today (Monday). The study, conducted by Nielsen Entertainment, concluded that seeing movies in the theater and at home "are not mutually exclusive occurrences" and appears to boost arguments by theater owners that they would be harmed significantly if movies were released in theaters and on DVD simultaneously. Thirty-six percent said they would skip the multiplex if that were to occur.

It seems as though this survey was designed to answer a question that's been on every theater owner's mind: Will our lives be ruined if DVDs come out at the same time as new movies?

Apparently 36% of people buying DVDs and saying they'd skip the movie is a cause for alarm. And it may well be. But let's take a quick break from the red alert and think about the other things that this survey is suggesting.

86% of people that watch movies frequently buy DVDs. I doubt this is anything new, but I think this fact has got to be making studio exec's eyes roll with dollar signs. I can testify to the fact that buying DVDs is WAAAAY more addictive than going to the movies (in fact movie theaters could learn a thing or two about trophy collection and presentation, but let's focus).
1.) There's more of a selection,
2.) the value proposition is much better, you get to keep the DVDs and watch them as many times as you want -- even though you probably don't
3.) You can do it on (mostly) your own time, and always if you count online shopping (which you should)
4.) You can handle multiple movies at once -- rather than having to queue up another one while you watch the first, you can just bring both home and never watch either!
5.) You have way more to show for owning than you do for just going, you have a COLLECTION. It looks pretty on your shelf, it impresses your friends and colleagues, it gives you excuses to invite that cute girl over.

If 86% of the people who get hooked on going to the movies, are hooked on buying DVDs, imagine if MORE people went to the movies! It's no secret that DVDs are outpacing ticket sales for lots of movies, in a lot of cases DVD sales are the reason movies can make back their production costs.

So if DVDs are the cash cow, why not completely fold theatrical release into the marketing effort. Give away the screenings at theatrical release and make everyone happy!

In a perfect world, the theaters could keep selling tickets to the people who are buying them and just give away the free shows to the remainder of the people and lure all but 14% of them into buying DVDs. Price selection, I believe they call it.

Of course, the 200+ million that Pirates took in on opening day is nothing to scoff at. There's certainly money to be made there. Theaters could charge for the advance sale of tickets for really popular movies and split the revenue with distributors like they're already doing. This should make everybody happy. The people buying tickets at least know what they're buying. A really good movie might be sold out in advance the entire time it's in theatrical release. But if nobody's buying, than the free tickets should allow the theaters to recoup those costs through DVD sales. I see everybody winning.

And none of this takes into account, the extremely important fact that, more people can afford to start making movie watching a habit. And habits are what drive this business (and from a personal standpoint, they're also what makes moviewatching fun).

The share of DVD sales vs ticket sales would certainly be a useful number here, but it may not even be necessary. This model optimizes all the things that make movie going good. For the studios it makes filmmakers want to make a movie really good to get people to actually pay for it, while giving them a decent escape route if most people think it stinks. Then the theater owners can still sell popcorn to full houses, even if Hollywood is in a temporary funk. The people only have to pay for the reserve seats to the really good movies and in the mean time can try out a bunch of less popular movies that they may like and the studios will make that money back in DVD sales.

It should even reduce piracy for the crappy movies, because why pirate it when you can watch it for free?

The big selling point for this, is that I think everyone stands to make more money while really improving the movie watching experience for the people that fund it all: the moviegoers.

Crippling Consolidation

2006-05-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

At the San Francisco International Film Festival last weekend, I was mentioning to one of the ushers at the Kabuki that my favorite theater in the city was the Metreon. She was indignant at first and then she stopped herself, and said, "No, it's ok, we own them, you know". I was about to go off on how Metreon was not an AMC theater, when I realized that she was right.

What a crazy world. The AMC-Loews merger put the Metreon and Kabuki under the same roof.

It's not really up there with an alien landing or Microsoft merging with Apple or anything really strange. But it got me thinking about the nature of competition in the Movie Theater industry. Anti-competitive complaints are the core grievance smaller theater owners hurl at the bigger chains. And the more I learn about Movie theaters, the more these just seem like necessary business practices; Smart moves, that a big player makes to survive.

The truth is, competition absolutely destroys a movie theater's chances of survival. And not just the bad or outdated ones -- all theaters. If you set up two 30 screen multiplexes right next to each other, they'll both fail. Chances are there won't be enough diversity of films to fill all the screens and there won't be enough people to fill all the seats. Think of a two party election where a third candidate similar to one of the first two candidates steps in and destroys both his own and that candidate's chances of winning.

When it comes to movie theaters, spacing is paramount. One needs a multiplicity of screens to draw enough people in with contemporary film offerings. And supporting all these screens is a sizable investment of time and space. One has to be very calculating to make sure it's going to work. There's not much room for experimentation, or winging it. Too many screens too close, and business dries up for everybody.

That's why a merger like AMC Loews makes sense when you hear about it. If planning is going play a central part in success, the more control you have over the situation the better off you'll be. Now AMC and Loews can grow their businesses through expansion that won't eat into any of the businesses they've already developed.

The marriage is apparently a boon for AMC and Loews. So the question is, is it good for everyone else? Is it good in general that this is the case? Is there any way to tell?

Flat out, it's trouble. It's the kind of trouble that's less like heading for a cliff, and more like getting deeper and deeper into the woods with no chance of getting out.

I love multiplexes. But I have my complaints. And that's the first hint that something's amiss. I'd like nothing more than to devote my life to operating a theater that eliminates all the things I have a problem with. But I've been thinking about this for two years, now, and there's no way to do it. There just isn't.
Even with unlimited funds, there would be no way to do what the big chains do much better than what they're doing. There are too many inflexibles that limit your options for offerings. Initially, I just considered these things (release windows, film availability, ticket revenue sharing) as obstacles or facts of the business, but now I'm starting to see them as something far more disturbing.

I mentioned before that movie theaters no longer benefit from competition, and the parameters for the business are precisely the reason that this is the case. And without the destructive innovation of competition (which is different from the destruction that competition is currently causing) offerings never improve and the industry stagnates. It's obvious that this is bad for the consumers who will never see responses to their various complaints. But in the long run it will be bad for the Theater Industry who will squeeze everyone out and generate a lot of ill will in the process.

They'll make all the right decisions in terms of doing what they need to to stay around. Unfortunately, in order to survive, they're acting in direct conflict to an evolutionary process that would otherwise produce a much more beautiful and efficient animal.

It appears, then, that the answer is not going to come from the upper echelons of the movie theaters chains. That area will trend towards consolidation and immovable institutions. I once wrote that perhaps the movie theater industry (and maybe America) had outgrown its capitalistic roots and that an institution would be the best answer. I've changed my mind. The institutions are only appropriate where the resources are limited and it's impossible to create more of them through innovation, etc (like with land for housing). This is perhaps the case for physical reels of film and you can make a case that movie theaters would have needed this type of institutional control.

Until digital distribution of film came along. The technology itself is not groundbreaking which is why people are not falling over themselves about it. And maybe it's why no one's paying attention to the various efforts to tighten control over digital content.

Like I said, the answer to making movie theaters better is not going to come from the theater chains. In order to survive, essentially, they can only make things worse. What needs to happen is the parameters need to be reset so that the industry can reap the benefits and innovations that come out of competition. Multiplexes need to shrink and become more mobile. Regular people need to be able to start movie theaters at will. Studios need to be more free with their content libraries and independent film distribution circuits need to fill out.

Network Infrastructure and Intellectual Property and Copyright protection are at the heart of what will make the basic complaints (people are loud, cell phones, advertising, expensive concessions, etc) people have with movie theaters go away.

I mean this is America. We love free markets! We count their benefits in every possible forum. Why is the smartest thing a movie theater can do these days is attach itself to the biggest player possible rather than going head to head with them? Somebody needs to rewrite these rules.

Delayed Gratification and The Decentralized Film Festival

2006-04-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

Movies, democracy, free markets, communism, competitive sports. These are the ingredients that I turn to most when cooking the thoughts on this blog. I just read "The Tipping Point" so I think I might be trying out a new spice in contagion. Movie theaters in the news tends to stimulate me into creating new recipes. And the most recent news I've been reading has a to do with the continuing fight against "Shriking windows".

Also, I'm really intrigued by an idea that came out in my last post, about the maturation of movie going preferences.

So with all this in mind, let's think about what it would be like to be able to watch any movie you wanted (i.e. even new releases) in any venue (home or at the movies). And for the sake of argument let's marginalize the effect of the cost of these movies. Let's say that it will somehow cost you the same to watch a new movie at home, as it does to watch it in a movie theater. Similarly, watching a classic in a theater will cost you as much as watching it in your personal home theater. Furthermore let's say that technology related to availability is perfect as well. You can get whatever you want as soon as you want it because the broadband pipes are big enough and because the movies are easily replicated and efficiently distributed.

Total free choice when it comes to watching movies.

As I understand it, this is the scenario that most theater owners are thinking about when they fight the "shrinking window". To me, it seems utopian. Hence, there must be some problems with it. And certainly there are.

The contention from the opposition, is that a structured system of windows allows all the "separate" markets (theatrical release, 2nd run, rental, home video, premium channel, and finally network release) to maximize their earnings. They argue that this model churns out more money than collapsed windows and simultaneous availability would.

I have always had a couple of objections to this argument. 1.) I'm not even sure if it's true. There's the possibility that there is no overlap between the people who go through the various conduits. i.e. the people who buy the dvds may not be the same ones who watch it in the theater. Thus neither market suffers at the expense of the other. And isn't there potential for people who would buy the dvd immediately, but don't after the movie has been out and discussed widely for a while? 2.) If this model does churn out more money than simultaneous availability, it seems to do so at the expense of people's choice, and doesn't offer them anything in return. Is the only reason I can't buy a dvd when a movie is first released so that I can be hit up twice for it? Why would I, as a moviegoer, ever vote for a system like that? Is it really good that people are making purchase decisions because of lack of options? I think it has a tendency to make a lot of people unhappy as they start to realize that it's not necessary.

Ok, nothing new. Back to the problems with Utopia. So what is wrong with unlimited choice? Basically, I think, it turns out that there is more to enjoyment than having full control. I'd even go so far to argue that a lot of the true pleasures in life are hidden in the actions that we don't explicitly choose. If you like a song, for example, and you end up buying the whole album because that's the only way you can listen to the music when you want to, you may end up discovering that you love the artist's other songs. Unfortunately, the opposite tends to happen as often (if not more often) which is why people put such a premium on fine grained control; like buying an individual song on itunes.

What kind of pleasures are we forced into with the movies? The most obvious is the crowd. Getting in rythm with a crowd can amplify the comedy of a funny movie. Sharing disgust with the other people in the theater can make you feel more whole after sinking 2 hours into a terrible movie. Finding a pleasant crowd can make the most tired themes seem fresh when you see people genuinely reacting to them. Crowds, of course, have a well documented downside. In fact they're the principal focus of most people's hatred of going to the movies.

But here's one that you may not have thought of. Limiting the choices you have actually helps making choosing a movie to go to a solvable problem. Right now, when you want to watch something you haven't seen before, you know you can show up at the movies and probably find something. Once you get there, you know you only have the choice of a few movies, and not every movie ever created. How would you ever choose a movie if you could watch anything? That's the oft-cited problem with cable: hundreds of channels, but nothing's on.

Furthermore, it's a convenient way to consolidate the resources that will always be limited. Even in this fantasy world, there will only be a few public venues that are capable of putting on a show as only a multiplex can. Limiting those screens to new releases, sets an acceptible public expectation of how those public resources will be allocated (film wise).

There may be lots of other things that end up being very positive byproducts of the current limits on moviewatching. Just think about how much more valuable a thing feels when you can't have it all the time. I think limitations, whether they're necessary or not, is an important component of our ability to enjoy things. As they say, everything in moderation.

But does that mean that we're better off without collapsed windows and simultaneous availability of movies? Probably not. As much as the protectionist theater owners and studios would like to protect their livelihood, most people would be better off with more choice (I'm thinking of a lot of examples of developmental economics, that I think are applicable, but I'm a fairly amateur economist, so I'm not sure).

So what if we could preserve some of the benefits of forced limitations? We're probably going to have to, because I think a lot of these things are more important to the way people watch movies than they realize.

So what are some ways to "limit" how people will watch movies when they don't have to. Well, how do we limit our moviewatching now? I can think of a couple of ways. One: we wait until all our friends are available until we watch a movie. Two: we wait until we hear lots of good things about the movie.

These things might not even be that hard to simulate in the world of unlimited movie choice. If you're interested in movies that show off the beaten path, let's call you a film festival kind of guy. Chances are that you know other film festival types and you share recommendations with one another. In Malcolm Gladwell terms, you might even be considered a maven if people sought your advice on movies. One way to fill up a movie theater would be to send a message out to all the people who take your recommendations and suggest that they all check out a new movie. This is a lot like waiting till all your friends want to see a movie and probably share some of the same benefits (if everyone wants to see it, then it has a high likelihood of being good). Then if there's not that much interest, you can always purchase the movie and watch it on your own at home.

This simple idea is the basic building block of this exciting thought that incorporates all the possibilities of public theaters, home theaters, and information technology. If you're the movie recommender, let's say you suggest a movie. Several things can happen.

150 people commit to watching the movie. A theater (realizing the profit that can be made from concessions) "buys" the copyrights for each moviegoer. Everyone gets to watch the movie for free and the theater makes a killing on overpriced concessions
People cannot decide on a time or not enough people come together to command a multiplex auditorium. People can come together in smaller groups and watch it in a good home theater, or as individuals. The distributors are still able to collect money for showing the movie. People are still able to watch the movie, although at a price higher than that if they had "waited" for a bigger crowd.
The commitments of the movie watchers can be communicated directly to the film makers. If the people like the film, the film makers can rally support for their upcoming projects, and potentially even funding! The deal can go something like, "Would you like to pay $10 to contribute to funding a movie about x? You'll get to watch the movie for free for the rest of your life and get a dvd. If we don't raise the amount needed to fit the budget, by a certain date, your money will be refunded"

That last part is the real gem. Is there a more appropriate way of getting funding? You're funded by the people who are most interested in seeing the movie, at a level of risk that is dynamic and acceptible to each individual. And you cut out the overhead of the standardized practices of the studio. Furthermore, the film is paid for before you even start filming. And there is still incentive to sell the film even after it's made (you can make more money selling it to people who didn't "invest" in it). As a filmmaker, who would you rather be bargaining with, the audience, or the studio? And as a moviewatcher, who would you rather be bargaining with, the filmmakers or the studio? There will still be a place for studio films (people who don't want the hassle of going to a million flakey investors trying to give their input) but for anyone who has an original and untested vision, this makes a much more appropriate start.

The people making the movie recommendations are doing exactly what I wanted to do when I said I wanted to have a movie theater. I wanted to share the movies that were good and in some oblique way contribute to making more. I'm sure there are more people who would like to do the same.

Some not so Idle thoughts on a lazy Sunday

2006-04-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

I really should be at the movies. Or watching a movie on the screen that's 2 remote control button pushes away. But despite the long term benefits in my emotional state that this would probably be responsible for, I feel like I must immediately reflect on this article I was just reading in Harvard Magazine.

Nothing against graduates of Harvard, but my pride insists on letting you know that I don't regularly read this magazine. Martha's mom did her undergraduate work there and Martha saw the words "economics" and "irrational" on the cover and deduced that I would be interested in the article. She's good.

Anyway, the article was talking about the hot new field of "Behavioral economics" which seems to have a growing appeal to the most current generation of people entering the field of economics. The way I understand it, behavioral economics is interested in the predictable, but not perfectly rational way in which people make decisions. This is a subset of the general study of economics which studies how people translate their values into choices, and how that can affect resource allocation, planning, production, finance, etc.

Naturally, this intersects with a lot of the "work" I've developed through this blog. Going to the movies involves people all around you (including yourself) making irrational decisions to the max. And a lot of the time, it seems to just work out so that most people win. In this way, it's a bit like a little model of the real world.
The part of the article that really got me thinking was this.

Suppose a company wants to sell more soap. Traditional economists would advise things like making a soap that people like more, or charging less for a bar of soap. A behavioral economist might suggest convincing supermarkets to display your soap at eye level -- people will see your brand first and grab it.

As an economist, even when you think psychology is important, you don't think it's this important. And changing interest rates is expensive, but these pyschological elements cost nothing.

Economists are famous/notorious for phrasing their world in terms of costs and values, and this article posits that behavioral economists are especially sensitive to empirical evidence (they see irrational behavior in real life and seek to resolve it). The problem with this line of thinking, is that the author has stopped thinking like either a tradional economost OR a behavioral economist.

Of course invoking psychological elements has a cost. What happens when people learn the hard way that they were manipulated into doing something that does not maximize their utility? Sometimes you use up your one chance at one shot gimmick. Shouldn't the behavioral economist attention to empirical evidence unturned this stone?

My guess is that this can be largely ignored, because in aggregate (as people in marketing know well) it's never a one shot deal. You get new, inexperienced "suckers", without even trying, and the gimmick never seems to lose it's power. The cost is negligible. Unless you're listening to the people who got suckered.

Let's say we're talking about movies (and we always are). Everyone on the production/distribution/exhibition side wants people to sell more movies. Moviegoers clamor for lower prices, a more comfortable experience, and better movies. Much like the traditional economists suggestions for how to sell more soap, people thinking rationally about what they think would make them go to more movies suggest "real" improvements to the value proposition. But time and time again, observable trends in box office results and extensive studies of moviegoer behavior will support the idea that if you cut a certain kind of trailer and follow a certain kind of plot formula, this will have a much bigger effect on how much you can sell, than all of those other things.

But amidst all this, there's no shortage of people complaining. Forums everywhere are full of embittered people who were duped by a trailer and convinced of nothing but Hollywood's disingenuity. Is behavioral economists to suggest that "psychological" elements like cutting a trailer that appeals to your generic instincts is as likely to work on these people as it is on people who haven't been burned?

I'll concede that in many cases, the same tricks work over and over again (seeing a trailer for the same kind of action movie, or reading a review that pumped up a movie that I initially didn't think I'd like have gotten me into a theater seat many many times). But you have to consider that a lot of times they don't. As people learn, and become more experienced, their decision making changes.

People are not static, and the decisions that we make are not independent of one another. That's what causes phenomena like "ad blindness" and over saturation of marketing efforts.

This is yet another predictable element of economic decision making that doesn't get a lot of press. I think it's pushed to the margins because the "educated" people in any given area of life will always be outnumbered by the inexperienced, and thus their actions will get drowned out as noise. But I think it would be an interesting and productive study how to wield an understanding of how people's decisions evolve as they mature.

Maybe what happens is that people eventually start doing what I have been doing: Constructing their own personal movie watching experience (choosing their own movies and viewing conditions), when their needs outgrow what the public venues are able to provide. The booming home theater and "netflix" industries are certainly evidence of this.

Then, in effect, what the hollywood blockbuster and multiplex machines have developed is a kind of moviewatching school. A crash course in the visual language. They have discovered the best ways to draw in the uninitiated into the world of movies, and give them enough of a taste to develop their own preferences.

This, of course, makes this idea of behavioral economics, a bit more like child pyschology. And just because those "children" occupy adult bodies, the idea that some parts of the way they make decisions is underdeveloped should not be ignored.

I'm a sell out

2006-03-29T00:12:00.000-08:00

An interesting thing happened to me tonight when I went out to the movies. (This tends to happen; it's why I resolve to see at least one movie in a theater each week). Martha had the great idea to go see "Thank You for Smoking". When she gets an idea into her head she is great about looking into it and figuring out how we can do it. She planned for a show after I got home from basketball, and verified that the movie was in fact playing at a nearby theater.

Unfortunately, she's not always reliable when it comes to verifying details :) She brought us to the Aquarius in Palo Alto where we were surprised to find out that the Thank You for Smoking was not on the schedule for the evening. As we tried to figure out where it was playing, the well-informed girl staffing the box office stated "It's not at the Guild, it's probably playing at a Century Theater". There was a hint of disdain in her voice.

If you have been following this blog for the last year or so -- as I'm sure you have ;) -- you might remember that I commented (mostly in Century's defense) on an article about an independent theater protesting Century's booking practices. Steve Mason, the operator of the Palm d'Or (the independent theater), actually emailed me about the blog post and provided me with his personal perspective on the issue. I think an exerpt from his message is appropriate:

"Your perception of Century Theatres is interesting as a customer. As an exhibitor in this industry, they are known as ruthless, demanding, and prone to litigation. It is often that a distributor says that dealing with Century is like dealing with the mafia."

I couldn't help but be reminded of this discussion when I heard the tone of the Aquarius employee. The Aquarius and the Guild comprise the Palo Alto presence of Landmark Theaters. Landmark, of course, has been a long time supporter for independent films. Until a few years ago, it had been the only chain to carry them. And now it seems that they, too, are getting shut out of movies that they may have wanted.

It all seems a little bit wrong. Landmark, being a first mover, and playing a pivotal role in creating the audience for movies like "Thank you for Smoking" doesn't deserve to be shut out of movies.

The worst part, though, is that when I heard our movie wasn't playing at either the Aquarius, or the Guild, I was actually relieved. Truth be told, as much as I love where they came from and the movies I can see there, I hate watching movies at those two theaters. The seats are uncomfortable, the screens are small, feel a little dim, and the sound is subpar. I'd much rather be at Palo Alto Square lounging in a comfortable seat, and experiencing all the polish of a well produced movie in sweet sweet hi-fi.

I was a little alarmed by this. What does that mean for people like me? If I'm ever lucky enough to have a theater, won't it be more likely to be a place like the Aquarius, than Palo Alto square? Where do my alliances lie? Do I really think the bigger theater chains like Century should be able to steal me away from theaters like the Aquarius, or the Palm d'Or?

In a word, yes.

It boils down to providing the best movie going experience possible. If the resources of a theater chain enable me to do that better than independence as a theater owner, than I'm siding of the Regal's, AMC's, and Century's of the world. To take it even further, if providing people with home theaters enables me to do that better than multiplexes, I guess I'll go into selling home theater equipment.

I find some theoretical grounding in all of this as well. In yet another previous post, I clumsily challenged the propriety of capitalism for all of our social needs. I've been doing some basic thinking and reading about capitalistic economies and competitive environments. And where capitalism (and competition) is really effective is at the margins. For example, providing people access to independent movies where there were none before (what Landmark did). But after the bloody competive battles yield the proper way to do things and still cut a profit, there's no need to compete in that space. It starts to be counterproductive, if nothing new is going to be developed. The only thing left to do is to make the experience better. And that battle will go to the people with the most resources to do so: the institutions.

With no disrespect to the important work that indpendent theaters have done in bringing a fresh variety of movies to watchers like me, their role in all of this is a bridge between and undeveloped market, and an optimal solution for getting people to the movies they want, how they want them.

To be sure, the work that first movers, like Landmark, do is both costly and instrumental to the development of any industry. And they should be awarded with some sort of patent on the process that they've perfected (if other people are going to use it). But independent theaters that are gradually losing this battle should not assume a protectionist stance on their roles. I hope that when I'm faced with these types of conflicts, I have the foresight to understand this.

Of course all this aside, at the heart of the matter here and at the Palm d'Or, the issue is that the question of who can provide a better service is not answered. Locking out nearby theaters from showing the same movie limits the ability to compete on even ground. Some people may prefer what the Aquarius has to offer, and the Aquarius may even want to offer it on a different schedule than Palo Alto Square. That, of course, may impede Palo Alto square's ability to make a living. But stamping out the competition and winning by denying the audience choice doesn't seem like a very productive practice.

And like that... he's gone.

2006-03-07T22:40:00.000-08:00

George Lucas:"The Blockbuster Is Dead"
go to original article ... or email me for article text

""The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie, Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong""

I'm inclined to agree. Sort of.

I think it's all too easy for "Hollywood" studios to make their money back on the big budget movies they produce. It's formulaic, in fact. That's why everyone celebrates and jeers at the big flops and misses. We're so used to them winning (and winning ugly) that we like to see them lose every once in a while. If you've ever cheered against the Yankees, Duke or (I hate to say it) the Lakers, you know what I'm talking about.

The studios have made a precise science out of what the public will come out to see, and it doesn't necessarily have much to do with how good, original, or meaningful the movie is. But they can make their money back (and more) in theatrical release -- and definitely in dvd sales -- because they're smart about what they put out. What people who go to the movies a lot are noticing, is that smart production moves don't tend to lead to interesting movies.

So what George is essentially saying is that it's impossible for GOOD big-budget movies to make their money back.

Over my many years of being obsessed with Star Wars and following what I could of George Lucas, I've flip flopped in my opinion of him many times. In the end, I believe that he is, in fact, an artist. He can fail to execute well, he's not prone to admitting mistakes, and he's not always in touch with his audience or the general public. But there is soul and creation infused in all the stuff he tries to do.

Reading the reaction to his most recent public comments, it's clear that not many people agree. Which is unfortunate. As an artist, I think Lucas is speaking out about how no one who wants to make an expressive piece of cinema will be able to access "Hollywood" funding, because outside the formula, the economics of film distribution just don't add up. And for people who think about art, the other movies don't count.

His predictions seem off base, because they probably are. I doubt we'll see the average production cost dip. Big movies still make money, and they will continue to because the channels are established and mature. The reality is, the checks and balances that exist corporately make it impossible for them to fail. But the artist is myopic and sees only his and his contemporaries paths. The people who want to make GOOD movies will have to work outside the hollywood machine (create a new machine perhaps) and do it for less money.

If this interests you, read the book "Blockbuster" (referenced on the right). Blockbusters are not just movies that cost a lot of money and bring in huge grosses. They refer to a specific period in the history of cinema where two huge dams seemed to break simultaneously. There was a backlog of images and stories that filmmakers were holding in their collective imagination that had yet to put on the screen. And there was a backlog of these same images in the viewers collective imaginations as well as access and choice to a multiplicity of films. The multiplex and big budget movie matured together and they were born of the Blockbuster (whose name even suggests exceeding capacity -- lines that went out the building and around the block).

Now the economic channels are more mature and there has been little unmet demand like before. I don't think a business will erupt like what happened with Star Wars, but steady technological changes will start to decentralize the big screen movie viewing experience (out of the multiplexes and into high quality home theaters and intermediaries) and this shift will allow a more balanced distribution of films across the appropriate channels. Not every film is feasible if it needs to go out to 10,000 screens worldwide. But any film with an audience can probably find a way to get made for that audience.

The blockbuster, isn't on the verge of death. Without anyone really noticing, it died years ago.

Back in the Saddle...theater Seat

2006-01-29T22:14:00.000-08:00

3 weeks in thailand...
2 east bay lodgings...
3 new jobs for Martha...
4 Economics books...
2 ideas for patents...
1 google sales conference...
1 christmas...
2 New Yearses...
1 Home theater Screen...
10 HD Channels...
500 spammers...
2000 emails...
and 18 movies later and...

I'm back to blogging! Sorry to anyone who missed me! Stay tuned for everything from Mark Cuban to my experiences in the wonderful mystery land of HD.

I'll be in my Trailer

2005-11-09T09:28:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend I discovered the awe inspiring power of on demand television. I had been reading about the various content delivery empires that each of the studios had been archtecting in "The Big Picture". Having never ordered any on demand services, I really had no concept of how mature the service was or how far along the on demand operators actually were.

And then I visited my uncle's house this weekend.

It was awesome. HBO on demand lets you watch the entire lineup of movies scheduled for that month PLUS all the series HBO has any time you feel like pulling them up. We even watched the starz bunny movies in 30 seconds. Their entire cable subscription included 3 on-demand boxes (one of which is a DVR) and high speed cable internet all for just over 100 bucks. And HD is an option for just a little bit more.

I had no idea.

Having all this content had me feeling overwhelmed, and the reason is illustrated perfectly by the fact that one box had a DVR and On Demand. I realize that the DVR is probably meant to record the content that is not available on demand, but isn't a DVR On-demand combo a little redundant? Isn't the point of both devices exactly the same: to control when and how you access content? How would you choose which one to use, and more importantly, how do you choose what you watch?

As I've noticed with my own Tivo, my viewing habits have totally altered my ability to stay abreast of popular TV. It's the classic difference between push and pull models of viewing. Before, TV was pushed onto me. I got home at a certain time, so I watched what was on, and it helped shape my interests and stay on top of what was going to come on next or in the next weeks. Now, I pull what I want off the tivo, which makes catching things I want infinitely more convenient, and I can skip the commercials (for other shows as well as commercial productS) to get to the stuff I came to see. But I've noticed, after a while, that after a while, I stop knowing what to watch at all. It's not that there isn't stuff on TV that I would like, I just don't know it's going to be on.

And what if you're a baby right now, growing up in the Tivo Generation. How will you ever know what to watch when your exposure is limited to what ends up on tivo or DVR?

Arguably, we've always been limited to what the networks (or our parents) thought was appropriate to show us on TV, but that only reinforces my point, that we're at a stage with our content availability that we need to take more deliberate steps to help viewers sort out what they'll enjoy.

I was thinking a good first step would be to proliferate audio-visual samples and summaries of the available content (i.e. trailers). But one problem with trailers is that a bad one will ruin the movie before you see it, or may not even express why certain people would want to watch a movie.

So what if people were able to cut their own trailers and share them?

Essentially it would be taking a page from the "new media" which offers a near-perfect analog. The idea of blogs and amateur news coverage is that while no individual source will be particularly accurate, the body of blogging work should provide complete coverage for a variety of perspectives and approach perfect accuracy across the collective by representing so many viewpoints.

If people who actually saw a movie and enjoyed it were able to cut trailers that were designed to compel people to enjoy the same parts that they did, we might not have to suffer the terrible misleading trailers that are designed to attract the lowest common denominator audience. Sure, there would be a lot of crappy trailers floating around (just like there are crappy blogs) but the good ones would be even more accessible to the actual watchers of content than good blogs that recommend the content would be.

Some intriguing side notes:

-If you hated a movie, you could even make a trailer that showcased the parts that you think might make people not want to watch it. I'm no advocate of parental controls, but you could cut a trailer that showed the explcit violence or sex in a movie that made you uncomfortable to serve as a counterpoint to the trailers that celebrate a movie.

-It would make the quality of a movie measurable in a much more meaningful way. If you could keep track of how a moviegoer got to a movie, you could also keep track of how many people liked it that came from that source/trailer. The results would be much richer than the plain box office success which could be affected by everything from false advertising, to national disasters to the holiday season. You could localize people's enjoyment of a movie to particular elements.

-While the film makers have a right (or perhaps even an obligation) to follow through on displaying a film according to their vision of the story, the public success of the film ultimately lies in the reception of the audience. Just like great works of literature, great films can be interpreted in many ways, perhaps some that the director or writer did not forsee or even intend. But they touch those chords with people nonetheless. If having a variety of critical reviews can help guide readers to great literature, a variety of promotional trailers would certainly help guide all the interested movie goers to a film that they would enjoy. Not just the ones that the director anticipates would enjoy the movie. It would be putting the success of the film in the hands of the people who really have the power to enjoy the film and thus make it successful.

Let the Hard Times Roll

2005-10-23T20:51:00.000-07:00

Movie theaters up the ante on advertising
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"While the trend took off in Europe, it never really gathered steam here as theaters were afraid of upsetting moviegoers.
But theater chains became much more receptive to tapping advertisers after falling on hard times financially in recent year"

Let's say you had a girlfriend. And you were afraid that you were close to breaking up. And the reason you two were breaking up was because you kept spending all of her money. Even after realizing that lets say you decided to spend more of her money. There are only two possibilities for what's going through your head.
- This is a last ditch effort to milk her for all she was worth before she kicks you to the curb
- You think might be able to buy her favor back spending her cash on some roses, jewelry, or a tropical vacation.

Either way, what would you say the chances of staying together were?

I guess the theater chains don't see it that way. Moviegoers shouldn't expect a better experience even if they are bankrolling it themselves with their time money, and in this age of ads, their eyeballs.

I think it's important to note how this trend took off in Europe years ago. Europe also offers much more attractive moviegoing prices in the form of monthly or season passes. As in, they're actually embracing the fact that movies are becoming an Ad-supported medium. Here, the theaters are trying to eat their cake and have it too.

I have to admit, the gossipy screen content isn't bad. I do like seeing the behind the scenes stuff when I show up earlier to the movie. But I can't help resenting the fact that they're collecting two checks from me.

Save me a seat!

2005-10-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

New Website Targets Home Theater Seating Market: SpielbergSeating.com
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"These real movie theater chairs are actually engineered and designed with movie viewing in mind, making them perfect for the growing home theater market.

Advantages of having a home theater are many. Having a real mini movie theater in your home keeps the kids at home more often, encourages the guys to come over for the NFL Super Bowl party, and have a ‘girls night in’ for a chick flick and some popcorn."

A true sign of the times.

The home media products and theatrical viewing products are quickly converging. Theater seats may not be as high profile an item as say, digital projectors or DVDs that are released at the same time as the theatrical premiere, but are perhaps a stonger indicator that the distinction won't be sticking around for much longer.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy for this situation. I guess home theaters are a lot like swimming pools. Everything you need to create a swimming pool in your backyard is available and almost commonplace, despite the fact that pools are also commonly available through public institutions. Noboby thinks twice when they see a pool in someone's backyard, it's entered people's minds that the swimming pool is something that you can enjoy at home.

The biggest difference, I suppose, is that people don't have to ask studio's permission when they want to practice their backstroke. :)

Punctuality

2005-10-12T23:55:00.000-07:00

I think some of my coworkers at Google find it intriguing when I say I want to operate a movie theater for a living. While asking me about it one day, one of my friends, Matt, asked me (paraphrasing) what a movie that changed my life was.

I find that this is one of the most earnest questions that people are likely to ask me about when we discuss this topic, and consequently, one of that can provide some of the best insight as to why I would want to spend my life in movie theaters.

My answer to Matt was that I don't think movies ever changed my life as in introduced a new way of thinking. Generally the ones that really moved me -- or that I really found important to me and always remembered -- were ones that dealt with ideas that I had been tossing around in my head and either helped me put them into focus or affirmed a direction I was moving my life in. Like how Contact landed right as I was at the peak of my academic ability in high school and as I was thinking about whether I should continue to spend my Sunday's in church.

I'm thinking about this now, because I just got back from watching one of those movies: Proof

I've been weirdly hesitant to blog recently, all of a sudden feeling the weight my work at Google and my own expectations. And it's left me very tired. While I've tried to continue keeping up the schedules and practices that I use to regiment some discipline into my blogging, I just haven't been able to turn any of the ideas I've been having recently into thoughtful posts or insight.

But in the end, the first practice I instituted is the one that's helping me shore up some inspiration. I made a goal to see at least one movie in a theater every week, and tonight is one of those nights where I remember why.

I've actually been to the movies 5 times in the last 2 weeks (I think I've been pretty desperate to get something going in my head and in my heart) to see Serenity, Roll Bounce, A History of Violence, Into the Blue, and finally, proof.

I walked away from the first four thinking that I'd seen each movie before, and in various ways I'd seen each done better (This was less true for A History of Violence than for the other three). I didn't detest any of the movies, and I could identify more than a little virtue in each film. But proof connected with me in a way that the other ones couldn't. And got me thinking about how proof tonight connected with me in a way that it couldn't have at any other time in my life.

Movies (like a lot of things in life) are all about timing.

I'll often hear criticisms of movies that rail on them for telling a story that had already been told or for trying something that had already been done. I feel like that is one of the least useful criteria for critiquing a film. But I also see it as one of the most natural things for an individual critic to bring up.

For me, films boil down to two things: Truth and Execution.

How good a film is dependent on its ability to resonate with a viewer because of how true it is, and how well it is accomplish what it sets out to do. Evaluating a film with respect to other existing films doesn't address either of these two things (which form the basis of a film's ability to touch people). But evaluating a film with respect to other existing films that you have seen does address whether or not you like it. Because a film that has moved you in a particular way, can never be supplanted by a film that moves you in a similar way. There just isn't enough room. (It's one of the great problems with having institutionalized individual film critics. A single person can really only advise someone with the exact same film watching history. It would make more sense to have one articulate voice rise out of the masses for each film. In fact, IMDB does this to some extend)

So what's the point of all this, and what does it have to do with movie theaters? Well, it's everything really. All there is.

I don't think people can mature without periodically taking time to reflect, either by creating art or observing art. The art can take many forms, printed literature, religious ceremonies, academic study, but one way that works for a lot of people is watching films. But as I mentioned before, with movies, as with art, timing is everything. So if movie theaters want to be venues that facilitate people's access to films that they'll remember, they have to recognize people's inherent sensitivity to timing. Movies need to be available to the patrons at the right times.

In a way, Hollywood does us a favor (or at least the younger generation) by remaking movies over and over and over again. In part it's less by diabolical design and more by nature. Just as there are legions of new people ready to receive an old message, there are legions of new storytellers that are just realizing how important that message is and desperate to tell it. And when it comes down to it, there are really only a few messages that need to be told. Some religious texts can fit it into a hundred page book that even I could finish. And the more current a transmission is, the more likely it is to be compatible with the receivers on the other end.

I take a lot of flak for being a "movie guy" and not having seen a lot of films like the ones that make up the AFI top 100. And I used to feel guilty or some how fake when I would watch some of those films and be totally unmoved. After tonight, I've got my alibi.

The challenge is to line up the people with what they need/want to see. And the exhibition arm is an important layer for filtering information down to the viewers, and back up to the creators. If people knew what they needed to see to they wouldn't need to see it. Theater operators (who have seen a lot of movies) are well positioned to direct people to films. Conversely, if filmmakers were perfect, they'd have very little to make films about. Showing the films to the right people can spark the dialog that the artists need to mature themselves (and make more and better movies).

Exhibitors can't do either of these things, without respecting timing.

As a bit of an aside, this explains another of my most commonly criticized movie quirks. In college I started amassing a rather large DVD collection that I would loan out to my friends and dorm-mates, and anyone who came by really. As it started getting bigger, it required a fair amount of organization, and I decided to order the films by year of release.

This infuriated people.

No one understood why I would want to do this, and I couldn't give a very convincing explanation. The main thing I liked about it was that I thought it was cool to see when a bunch of movies I really liked all came out for the same Oscar season (like 1998). I liked seeing them bunched visually.

Now I realize that it was more than that. I liked traversing my personal history through film. The concept of timing even explains the other thing that seemed to infuriate people: that I had lots of movies that they thought were awful. Organizing my DVDs (good and bad) by year gave me a rough map to revisit all the major events in my life. What would make even more sense would be ordering movies in the order that I saw them (and then possibly even in the order that I _saw_ them, or really understood them).

Now that I think about it, this would be a cool thing to offer movie theater patrons, to reward them for their habit and remind them about what their habit has built (like amazon.com does).

I think I'm going to go reorder my DVDs. :)

Paint by Numbers

2005-10-03T20:50:00.000-07:00

Curiosity Culture

"Oftentimes, all we have to do is check that a movie is as bad as everyone says it is, in enough numbers, and - poof! - we've accidentally launched another blockbuster film franchise on an unsuspecting world."

I'm finally on to a new book (both books, by the way, are great, and are listed over on the side bar), and a couple of pages into it, it's already helped me focus on a point that I've been meaning to bear down on. We all hear the box office reports that are meant to do everything from measure a film's success in earning back it's production budget to give insightful critiques about moviegoing trends and the social climate. Unfortunately, the simple gross revenues tend to do this very poorly.

For example Tom Shone (Author of afore-mentioned new book) compares the list of record-breaking films by gross revenue, to the all time list of top grossers when adjusted for simple inflation. The first list is dominated by movies released in the last two decades, with little to no representation from any previous era. The inflation adjusted list drops most of these films out of the top 50 or down to near the end of the list. This list is headlined by Gone with the Wind and has several representatives from the 70's, 60's, 50's, and even the 30's.

Obviously there are a lot of things to compare from era to era, how many films were released, how many venues were playing different films, how much more expensive films are to produce, what alternative entertainment existed, etc. But the greater point is that, the gross revenue numbers that seem to get broken year after year don't really mean anything.

Most unfortunate is the fact that gross revenue is the only number around. I know, because I quote it to my friends all the time. I even regurgitate the "interesting" spins I get off IMDB about how the revenue is the largest seasonal opening for a film starring a particular actor without the presence of another actor in a particular genre yada yada...

Box Office analysis needs some serious attention. There's an ESPN writer that I really like, John Hollinger, who evaluates players and situations with an extreme statistical bias, however goes beyond the traditional metrics and combines the stats that are already being recorded into more meaningful numbers. For example, he combines a player's scoring output, rebounding numbers, defensive contributions, etc into an all around evaluator "Player Efficiency Rating". He combines 3 point accuracy, standard field goal percentage, and free throw percentage into a "True shooting percentage". These concepts are already starting to become popular with the play-by-play commentators and other analysts who evaluate player performance for the general public.

A suite of numbers like this, but applied to the film industry, would accomplish a few really important things. One it would push the general public towards a more imaginative understanding of the film landscape. This could inform their moviegoing habits, and potentially shift how and where they purchased media. I think it would also legitimize a lot of projects that don't look so hot when you look at their gross revenue. For example, a movie with a good per theater draw across 50 theaters, never looks that impressive, when you tally it together, but it's possible that it's generating twice the interest of a movie with a wider release despite a smaller marketing budget. Finally, the DVD/home media sales are already factoring heavily into the studio's estimates of a movie's profits. This should start to be institutionalized, as again, it legitimizes some projects that don't look attractive in wide theatrical release, but could still have a successful life in home video.

This number could be an important bargaining point for two groups of people. The creative forces (actors, directors, anyone with profit participation deals) could cite it in their contracts. Since the DVD release will be sliding closer and closer to the theatrical release, exhibitors can make a case for a share of the overal box office revenues, and if studio content doesn't want to comply, maybe independent distributors (like what landmark is offering currently) will more willing to deal.

As it stands, I have a lot of box office data to stare at, but no numbers to show for it. As I accumulate more data, I expect things will start to become clear (I hope :) ). Between now and then, I'll try to pick up a statistics textbook and build on the following concepts:

Blockbuster Rating: Some concept of true dominance, like Gone with the Wind, or Titanic recently
Staying Power: Films that are either rewatcheable or continue to generate interest
Home Video/Theatrical Bias: Films that were watched more or less in one format
Overall Value Proposition: How much earning potential a film has relative to it's production costs

And a bunch more that I can't think of right now. (But I'd love to hear ideas)

Reinventing the Wheel

2005-09-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

Film exhibitor is directing a construction project
go to original article ... or email me for article text

""I think the reason drive-ins became popular was twofold," Harris said. "First, they recognized that America after World War II had become a mobile society and that we would do everything we possibly could in our cars. Second, smaller exhibitors couldn't afford to bring films to hardtop [indoor] theaters, but they could get them for the drive-ins. It was a way to get into the business."

"It was cheap back then to buy 10 to 40 acres on the outskirts of some town. Land is much too expensive now for that. There are maybe only 100 drive-ins left in the entire country.""

Here's an interesting segue into another half baked thought I've been struggling with. If the Drive-in was the low cost way into the exhibitor business, and nickelodeons were the entry level operations that preceded them, what's the cheap way into the business now?

Obviously, they're doing it over at the Moxie (see previous post) but I think reading through the Moxie blog should convince you that between permits, finding financing, preposterous rents, and studio distribution arms milking every last penny from their content libraries, it's entirely too difficult to get started in this business. Or any business for that matter. Which may seem like a reasonable hurdle if your goal is to turn a profit. It's widely accepted that it takes money to make money, and being that it's no interest of mine, I'm content to let the MBA's debate that point. But maybe somewhere along the line, it stopped being commonly accepted that businesses don't exist to make money. Businesses start because someone wants to be afforded the opportunity to provide a good or service to somebody else.

Obviously it's not as simple as that. And as far as I can tell, the reason for that is that if whatever resources would be consumed by a business can be used in a more profitable way, than the more profitable scheme wins. They tell me that it's called capitalism.

But is it really? One way I've been taught to understand capitalism is that it's a successful way of organizing people into an economy because one is rewarded for working hard, and thus incentivized to continue contributing. That seems to fit, more or less with the general idea of the previous paragraph.

But I was thinking about it (and forgive me if this is obvious and not as interesting to you as it is to me), and it seems like the reason capitalism has been so successful is something different. Capitalism allows people to basically fill in the needs of their community as they arise (as opposed to circumventing them as the self-oriented incentive system would suggest). People see a problem, realize that they can do something about it, and can afford to spend their time working on it, because it pays. This is great for the governing body, because they don't have to think of everyone's needs ahead of time and can leverage the intelligence and enthusiasm of the citizens (rightly so). And it's great for the community because they don't have to wait for the slow deliberation that is a natural result of a complicated governing body.

So if you're following my logic -- Assertion A: It's no longer easy to provide a service you want to provide, Asserion B: One of Capitalism's great benefits was that it allowed people to provide serices they wanted to provide. Does the combination of these two assertions suggest capitalism has outlived it's usefulness? I would answer yes... but if I were to give an impartial answer, it depends on the arena.

The problem with most industries, is that as they've matured, they've become dominated by institutions that are provide as much bad (if not more) than good. These institutions help preserve knowledge and prevent people from having to reinvent the wheel. But at the same time, they necessarily shift their operationa focus from providing a service to (sometimes exclusively) staying alive.

And on top of that, they often deny people the joy of inventing the wheel.

Maybe this is all fine if you buy into the idea that innovation and living on the cutting edge means that people will always have a place to dig into their souls and find that joy. But I'd argue it's not the same. Most of the discoveries and innovations that will actually make people feel fulfilled are things that have already been institutionalized and made unavailable (ironically, through school based education). That's why people in small towns still want to start movie theaters even when they've been to multiplexes, and why college students move back to farms to experience truly providing their own food. And it's even why people still find giving birth one of the most soulful experiences of their lives even though it's happened over and over and over again since the beginning of time.

In light of all this, I think it's unwise for a culture to continue without making consideration for enabling its citizens to participate in the meaningful tasks and occupations that will make them feel whole.

I don't know what this calls for. Probably some recognition of mature industries that are important to people, and diverting the interest in these industries from keeping th old institutions around to giving places for new generations to break in. In true capitalistic form.

And then opening my movie theater will be a snap! :)

Better late than never!

2005-09-27T18:10:00.000-07:00

It's showtime at Springfield's Moxie
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The 75-seat, single-screen Moxie Cinema opens to the public tomorrow night at 408 W. Walnut St. downtown after months of anticipation, delays and renovation. The first film shown will be "Me and You and Everyone We Know," a contemporary romance which has won awards at the Cannes and Sundance film festivals.

It's the culmination of a dream and hard work for owners Dan and Nicole Chilton, lifelong movie buffs who met as employees at Springfield 8 and married two years ago."

I'm a little late, since this happened about a week ago, but what would be a greater tribute to the belated opening of the moxie than belated post about its opening :). Also I couldn't pass on recognizing the culminating event of a blog that has been such an inspiration to me.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

2005-09-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

Unruly teens spur bigger police presence at theaters
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Ken and Eunice Pierce, owners of Picture Show III in Palm Coast, complain that 100 or more raucous teens often gather in front of the theater on Friday nights.

Some never buy tickets. Others buy a ticket then disrupt the film being shown, the couple said."

As one of the people who probably constituted the raucus mobs being complained about here, I have to admit this issue takes on a level of personal significance. I mean, I never threw a drink at another theatergoer or beat down anyone from a rival gang, but I did engage in my share or rowdy and michievous behavior at the multiplex when I was in High school... um... college... ok like last week. But, the point is, I definitely feel for these kids.

When you're too young to be legally allowed to do most of the things you find interesting, and old enough to start thinking for yourself and really exploring the world, there's something irresistable about congregating at the movies, no matter who you are or who you roll with. First of all, everyone goes. Even the kids who can't go out without their parents generally end up at the movies friday night (even if it is with their parents).

And while you don't really think about it at the time, the movies capture your imagination (if you end up buying a ticket :) ) in a way that school and most other things you're doing really can't. They cover all the issues of romance, growth, independence, friendship, etc that are all at their dramatic apex. And being around all that just makes you want to hang out.

But at the same time, I know how intimidated I was by some of the kids that hung around movie theaters (and I'm sure at some point, I must have intimidated someone much older or younger than me), and it can sometimes take you out of what would otherwise be a fantastic time.

Cops are obviously not the solution. Nobody ends up feeling safer around cops, even if they do stop the worst crimes from happening. My first thought would be to embrace the youth (which hollywood already tends to do with its product) and cater to their needs. But I can't really think of good ways to do that without alienating other patrons.

There needs to be an environment that lends itself to self regulation. I feel like if people had better things to do than hit each other, then they'd probably do them. One obvious thing is if kids could afford the movies maybe they wouldn't hang around outside as much. Or if there was some lounge where kids could buy affordable snacks and chat alongside other patrons, they wouldn't alienate so many people.

I haven't thought too much about this, to be honest, but it's so important! The movies mean so much to people who are growing up, theaters need to be a place where they can be introduced to a public world in a productive way. And I don't think the solution needs to involve heavy policing or anti-teen rules. I think we just need to look at the places where younger just naturally interact well with their more mature counterparts. What are those places? Libraries? Apprenticeships? Malls? (probably not malls), Doctor's offices? Nursing homes? Operas?

Just don't give up on the kids while you've got a chance to help them along.

Are we there yet?

2005-09-19T00:28:00.000-07:00

Disney At The Forefront Of Digital Cinema
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"NEW YORK - As digital cinema starts to move from technical specs to reality, The Walt Disney Co. has become the first studio to commit to providing its pictures for the new format.

The Mouse House pledge is part of a potential rollout of more than 2,500 digital-cinema systems being administered by tech companies Christie and AccessIT (amex: AIX - news - people ).

The joint venture, dubbed Christie/AIX, will fund 200 d-cinema systems this year, which could more than triple the number of digital screens in the U.S. "

In other news, Disney seems to have made some sort of commitment to funding the installation digital cinema, as per its promise. Unfortunately I seemed to have imaginined what would have been the most juiciest part of this article which was a few vague details about how the funding would work (which I swear I saw, but no longer seem to be able to find). As you may have read elsewhere, Disney plans to pay whatever financial institution that actually purchases the projectors a "print fee" of about 1000 dollars (roughly the equivalent of manufacturing a physical print) for every film released to be shown on a new projector.

I wonder how it's going to work with the other studios though. Will everybody pitch in and pay the print fee? Will studios who don't chip in be barred from the digital projectors? It doesn't seem likely that Disney would offer the other studios a free ride, but I hope whatever results isn't fewer movies being available.

All You Can Eat

2005-09-18T23:37:00.000-07:00

What Hollywood and the Movie Theater Industry Need is a Good Kick in the . . .
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Companies like Netflix, Gamefly, Napster & Comcast all make it possible to subscribe for a fee instead of buy or pay per use. By charging per month, these services bring in substantially more revenue than businesses that charge per use. This revenue, by the way, is the magical reoccurring revenue that every business so covets.

My name is Davis, I am a TV addict. While some people are proponents of the ala carte pay per use pricing menus for their entertainment, if I was forced to pay for every show I watch on TV, I would either watch a lot less TV or pay a hell of a lot more. Some people like to go outside and play in the sunshine. I do not. At present by paying cable "only" $39.99 (plus $10 in taxes that they really should pay for) per month I am the equivalent of the super fat man who spends every day gorging himself at the smorgasbord.

So this brings me to my point. Why not offer a monthly subscription fee to your local movie theater chains. Consumers would be happy to spend $30 or $40 per month in order to have the privilege of seeing films the way I did when I worked for the theaters. Instead of collecting $40 per year from me now, theaters could instead bring in $480 each year with an all you can eat model."

The idea of including a membership pass offering at movie theaters is another old favorite of mine. I've often thought this would be a good idea (and it's worth noting that this is already in place in several places in Europe), particularly for the theater owners -- who don't get very much reliable revenue. But reading this call for subscription based movie-going, jumpstarted my imagination for realizing the potential of this idea.

It hits close to home, because I've tossed around a number of concepts on this blog that would be affected/addressed by taking a measure such as this. The foremost of these was briefly addressed in an old blog post about doing the math behind going to the movies. The beauty of serving movie-going in a buffet line is that theater owners can now compare their services with those that use the predominant model of charging for modern entertainment or digitally enabled services (both classifications apply to the digital cinema). And once they compare, they can compete.

Put another way, movie theaters won't have to look so unattractive next to the prospect of digital cable or cell phone service. The unfavorable comparison between "watching as much TV as I want for $30 a month" vs "paying $10 for one movie ticket" will look much better when movie theaters can offer unlimited movies at $30 a month. Now moviegoing and cable can match up feature for feature. Both have a similar price point and both involve some form of unlimited access.

People might not even end up watching more movies for their money. But the peace of mind that comes with knowing you're getting a much better value and that you have the freedom to watch as many movies as you want will, I suspect, prove irresistible. Some might argue that the added value of this freedom is totally imagined if you don't end up watching any more movies than you pay for. But in a way, using this model, people pay for something that they should have been paying for the whole time.

I don't think, I've covered it on this blog, but I have often considered the fact that people who go to movie theaters less frequently than others, disproportionately benefit (cost wise) from the services of a movie theater despite the fact that the frequent moviegoers actually do more to support the theater. The thought goes something like this: Even if you doesn't go to a local movie theater, you always have the option of going. There is some value in the availability of the theater that people tend not to think about. Furthermore, the theater can't stay open for free, even if you don't go (this verifies that theater availability has a legitimate price). Operating costs are pretty much the same for the theater whether it's full or empty. So, by this logic, a person who goes to a theater once a week pays for his share of the theater's weekly operating costs, but a person who only goes once a month is off the hook for 3/4 or the time. And the person who goes 4 times a month doesn't carry as much of the burden as one who goes 4 times a week. And so on...

The question of who should pay for this value seems open to debate. Should people pay for it indirectly through taxes paid to the local government -- who in turn subsidizes the theater's rent? Should the cost show up more explicity in higher ticket prices for less frequent movie goers?

Neither seems particularly feasible, as the local governments have plenty of people asking for tax dollars, and the more expensive ticket prices for infrequent patros would discourage a lot of people from even trying the theater.

Ah, but how about those subscriptions? They accurately address the "hidden" value of theaters always being available, since you pay a set amount and can come whenever you want. More importantly, it opens peoples imaginations to the prospect of going to the movies regularly. It is doubly succesful because it not only fairly charges everyone for their share of going to the movies, but it increases the value for the frequent moviegoers whose role as patrons is invaluable for any theater (for a variety of reasons from concessions sales to word of mouth marketing to loyalty.)

But is a monthly pass feasible? Obviously movie theaters suffer certain constraints that don't always apply to cable television, netflix, etc. The most obvious is capacity. Theaters can't always accomodate the maximum audience they draw. A related problem is needing to have a print in order to show a movie. Aha! Here's an intriguing place to plug in the possibilities of digital cinema. With unlimited digital copies of a movie, a theater can show the blockbuster film du jour to every seat in the house if they wanted to. All they would need is an accurate projection of how many people want to see a movie and how many screens need to be dedicated to a film. A good way to arrive at this projection might be to request that passholders "reserve" a spot by signing up online or going to a box office.

In a best case scenario, there would be no need to "black out" certain popular dates in the schedule. Having black out dates would certainly reduce the value of monthly pass, possibly defeating its purpose for some people. With accurate projections for satisfying the boom-like demand for brand new theatrical releases, theaters should still have the chance to even accomodate walk-in viewers by reserving a screen or two for them (who might then be enticed by the value of the monthly pass). Hopefully then the blockbusters could serve as loss-type leaders to bring in people to watch the rest of the films being featured at the multiplex.

And if the monthly pass becomes successful in driving people to request the films they want to watch before they arrive at the theater to watch them, it could team up with digital projection in another powerful way by tapping into the entire film library.

And I'm talking about the whole damn thing.

Since digital cinema theoretically allows viewers to watch any film at virtually the flip of a switch, people can start to approximate the freedom of choice they enjoy with cable, pay-per-view, or internet downloads. A savvy interface would allow people to share film preferences and resonate with each other until they filled a single theater with a bunch of people who wanted to watch the same movie. And again, since any movie is fair game, people don't have to be subject to a slow season from Hollywood, they can turn to old favorites or films on a "limited run" (although that distinction may not exist in the world of digital cinema)

What could make this even better (for the moviegoers at least) would be to have a pass that worked at any theater, regardless of chain ownership or affiliation. This would be a huge win for the moviegoers who could limit their movie budget to one monthly pass and not have to worry about multiple subscriptions. Participants might have to take a leap of faith with respect to profit sharing but an umbrella monthly pass ticket provider that a theater could just "plug into" might be a benefit to everyone. In fact, this would probably have to be the case for smaller arthouse theaters in the same area that tend to work like a decentralized multiplex anyway.

I find that I alternate between favoring ideas that encourage unlimited use and choice, and those that model a more efficient and conservative model of using (and paying for) only exactly as much as one needs. After a life of going to the movies and about a year and a half of thinking and writing about it, I've realized, the core of moviegoing is its value as a habit. And having an unlimited usage model (whether it's a library card or a monthly internet fee) is crucial to nurturing a habit.

Baby Scapegoats

2005-09-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

Mama-rama: Don't segregate women, kids
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"But then I remembered the time that I was sitting in a nice restaurant in Chicago - out by myself sans kids for the first time in months - and had to listen to a toddler at the table next to mine loudly whining, "Noooooo! Nooooooooo! Noooooooooooooo!" for at least 10 minutes. When I glanced over at the parents, they seemed oblivious to the fact that other diners were shifting uncomfortably in their seats and sighing loudly over their $25 plates of ahi tuna.

It then occurred to me that the problem isn't babies - it's clueless adults. I think the majority of moms are aware of the effect their kids are having on the general public around us. But it only takes one bad experience - a toddler running amok in a fancy restaurant, a relentlessly fussing baby in a movie theater - to give people the impression that not only are all kids loud and obnoxious, but most parents don't care."

Ain't that the truth.

Aside from rising ticket costs, the most pervasive problems facing theater operators are ones that arise because people aren't good at sharing space together. I don't think its that people don't care. In fact, most people are probably too sensitive about it. That's why they chafe when another person asks them to keep it down, or to take their baby outside.

But the problems are not the babies or cell phones themselves (as the solutions such as mother-only-shows might indicate). Culturally we need to learn how to give and receive criticism about being considerate of other people. And misdirecting the attention by telling people to keep their babies at home actually only perpetuates the problem by increasing people's sense of entitlement.

This topic, of course, is becoming a theme on this blog, but it is with good reason. Theater operators, as the stewards of one of the public's most commonly used shared spaces are in a unique position to build on the lessons we learn in kindergarten about sharing. And with their businesses dependant on it, they stand to gain a lot by making sharing a sophisticated adult virtue.

Public Domain

2005-09-10T22:31:00.000-07:00

Original Forum Post

And while we're on the topic of followups... A recent post of mine included some mention of public domain. Big Screen Biz managed to provide some more up to date information about what's in the public domain of filmed content. You can read the details here... but it's essentially nothing.

B-Movies and stuff filmed prior to 1923 that don't have remastered soundtracks. The pickings are slim. Down with copyrights :)

"30 Year olds Playing Halo"

2005-09-10T22:00:00.000-07:00

Original Forum Post

As an interesting follow-up to a recent post about the "Holodek" video arcade concept and my own ideas about rentable auditoriums for entertainment media, I came across this post on bigscreenbiz.com. This operator charges $40 an hour for use of a digital projector on a really big screen. For a four player game like Halo, that boils down to about 10 bucks per person per hour. Which is a pretty reasonable deal. The more evidence that this could be a viable business, the better.

How to ACTUALLY open a movie theater

2005-09-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

Keeping the Movies Downtown
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Regardless of the trends, smaller cities and towns still feature viable downtown theatres that provide gathering places and centers of affordable entertainment for all ages. These theatres range from long-running single-screen theatres and newer multiplexes, to non-profit or cooperative theatres and even city-run movie houses. Below are examples of successful theatres in small city downtowns employing a variety of strategies to keep the movie house lights on."

A lot of people end up at this site because they are interested in opening movie theaters in their town and want some guidance about how to get started. Well, I've been writing this blog for a long time and I figured it was about time that I actuall did some of the research (alluded to in the title) and found out some of what the people want. While I was reading through the archives of the great community over at bigscreenbiz.com I found a great post that covers basic ideas for how a "normal" individual can generate enough capital to get a theater off the ground. The possibilities/suggestions range from. The ideas that are covered range from strategies on just plain saving money to the more nuanced ideas about leasing to own vs buying theater properties outright, or trying to use historical site provisions or community support in aiding your cause.

And then I ran into an even more incredible resource. A University of Wisconsin graduate student working on a collaborative project involving "downtown" businesses developed a toolkit that outlines how one might assess the viability of a downtown theater in a specific area. So if you're interested in building a movie theater in your town, all you need to do is do the research, plug in your findings and you're halfway to a business plan!

If you want to open a movie theater, here is where you should start

Death By Taxes

2005-09-10T11:23:00.000-07:00

Proposed movie tax has theater owners reeling
Levy likely to result in higher ticket prices
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"That cost could go up if a tax on movie theaters proposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm is approved.

The 6% tax would be on the movies theaters buy from distributors, but that cost would almost certainly be passed on through increased ticket prices. Some theater owners said the increase could range from 30 cents to a dollar per ticket.

Proponents said the tax could bring in about $20 million annually to help the state's rising budget deficit. Michigan's projected deficit is $1 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1."

People seem to love taxing movie theaters. This is the second article I've come across that discusses the possibility of taxing the activity of moviegoing. For someone like me that's enough to qualify this as an epidemic.

I wonder if people on the outside of the industry are really just that unaware of how cash strapped theater businesses are. Or maybe it's just me that thinks they are. Maybe the bigger chains could absorb a tax like this and it's only the smaller independent theaters that are hurting. If that's the case, I think whatever legislation is being passed should segment the industry into more sensible parts. The game that national multiplex operations play isn't in the same league as independent theaters... it's arguably not even the same sport. So why would you want to take money from the little guys? You're not gonna get that much money anyway.

But of all the things to hit up, why would this legislation target the film rentals? Maybe they're caught up in the glamour of the movies and are mistakenly confusing them as the source of revenue for theaters. Film rentals and ticket sales are where everyone is hurting the most right now. Why not take a swing at concessions. At least the costs won't be passed directly down to anyone who wants to go to the movies (who are, by virtually any standard in the filmed enterainment business paying too much). And there's more money in it for the tax.

This highlights one of the inherent conflicts with a government that tries to make it's living off a capitalistic economy. Ideally the government benefits from the industries getting richer because they can claim a big percentage of their profits since their economic rules enabled and protected them as they amassed their wealth. But in creating powerful, money hungry insitutions, they produced industries that did not want to share their riches with anyone including the government. So by flexing their muscles in the lawmaking process, they get "favorable" legislation that let's them keep as much as they can get away with and spread out the damage to everyone else (who are of course less well equipped to be bearing the weight of the government's financial needs).

There need to be more incentives to being poor. But then, who would go to the movies? :)

Learning to Share

2005-09-06T00:26:00.000-07:00

Studios scrambling to adapt to fast-changing DVD marketplace
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Wagner, the company's co-owner, said under his model, theater owners share in the revenue made from distributing films on DVD and other media.
"We want the exhibitors to be a part of this because they should be and from my perspective, they always should have been," Wagner said"

This one almost knocked me onto the floor. Honestly, who would have ever thought that a studio would want to share copyright revenues with ANYONE (including creative forces, investors, etc) especially the exhibitors who are so clearly dependent on their content to make a living?

I think it's great. Obviously.

I think there is a lot to gain from lining up the studio and exhibitor interest like this. It also raises some extremely interesting peripheral issues. The relationship between Wagner's studio and the Landmark exhibition chain isn't your typical distribution relationship. Landmark and Magnolia are both owned by the same parent company, which naturally lines up their interests. But what Wagner's saying isn't a contrived excuse for vertical integration and tiptoeing on antitrust territory. He's right. Theaters and studios are in it together. It's just the nature of their relationship. Both are middlemen for connecting creativity with the masses. Splitting theater chains from studios in the 40s through the notion of antitrust violations may have temporarily disarmed the studios, but they just found new ways to dominate. And now, not only are the majority of creative forces getting the shaft, but theater operators are at a constant disadvantage as well.

And if you'll indulge me one small tirade, someone should really take aim at the device by which all studios maintain their power. They have basically unlimited power over copyrighted material. One thing I've been learning over and over again from Epstein's "The Big Picture" is that content is indeed king, and studios own all the content. What the book leaves out, though, is that this relationship makes absolutely no sense. Basically studios pay actors, technicians, artists, producers, etc a fixed fee and package their work into a collection of copyrights which they then lord over the general public into perpetuity. The resulting revenue stream into eternity is vastly richer than any fee they pay to the people who actually make the movie. They stamp out dvds or digital copies of the content at little to no cost and make their actual profits because of the intellectual property rights they secured at the time of making the movies. My favorite part of all of this, is that I found out that generally, the studios don't even invest financing in the individual movies. They only provide all the peripheral services to move the movie into their marketing machine (which is very expensive). But meanwhile, no one actually makes money off the lasting value of content except the studios.

And why should this be? Some high profile hollywood names get royalties, but really they shouldn't be paid in this manner either. They did a service once, and they were paid for it (often very well). The fact that people want to see it over and over again is service that should be paid to the people who actually help them do this (and put in some sort of work). The DVD pirates that hollywood loves to villify are actually in my mind, doing more actual work on the movies than the hollywood studios are. They're putting in their own labor and bringing people a service they want. And it costs the creative forces nothing. The studios never let their accounting give money back to creative contributors, so they get what they get up front. So the "stealing" they point out is actually fair competition. Pirates compete with studios as dvd distributors and movie theaters as content deliverers. It's only technically stealing because of an outmoded and totally exploited notion of copyrighting that is meant to protect creative forces, but fails miserably in doing that.

So what needs to happen? Someone needs to to dismantle the copyright system. The entire library of creative content should have a far more limited lifetime before it becomes public domain. There needs to be a system that keeps "copyrights" or something like them in place only until a producer or creative force has a reasonable chance to recoup the costs of creating that material. After that, the content should be free to anyone.

The key here is allowing people to recoup the costs and risk of an expensive undertaking such as filmmaking. Not allowing people the potential to make a great deal of money on their investment. Unfortunately (for creative talent everywhere) this seems to contradict the fundamental value of capitalism, and this is still America.

And in America, the studios would either quickly squash any legislation aimed at taking away their main source of money and power, or find some equally effective way of dominating (historically at the expense of other people)

But if you think about it, this is the proposition that makes the most sense when you think about what people are everyone is trying to do. What everyone needs is the most efficient way of getting movies out of the minds and hearts of the creative talent and into the eyes and ears of the general public, distributing the value as evenly as possible along the way to the forces that make it work.

So consumers pay content providers (cable and satellite networks, movie theaters, dvd manufacturers, etc) for providing them with movies they want to see. The content providers in turn pay the creators for giving them new material to give their customers. Nowhere in this equation do we need studios to act as the permanent stewards of the movie copyrights. As long as the creative forces have some way to recover their production costs, movies can go free to go into a public domain market like any furniture, vegetables, clothing, or any other commodity. Their value is precisely how much they cost to produce plus service markup.

Destroying copyrights probably won't be an easy task. Patents and all other notions of intellectual property will have to be reformed in the process. I can't fathom how any of that would ever get moving. But it's the right thing to do.

Tirade over. Getting back to Wagner, I think this move may be a step towards simplifying the distribution problem. It's certainly subscribing to the idea of distributing value among all of the involved parties. It's also chopping down one of the mythical services of the studios: generating content. If movies can be distributed directly to widespread theatrical release, without the assistance of major studios, maybe all the talent would want to start doing things on their own. Next all we would need is someone with access to all the market data that studios have to produce the same moneymaking formulas and strategies that they learn through analysis of theatrical releases. If they could make the same predictions and recommendations, the studios would be pretty much useless.

Taking out copyrights would speed things up though :) But everyone wants their copyrights. This is America.

Does anyone know any hollywood copyright lawyers?

Gimme two tickets... animal style

2005-09-05T23:59:00.000-07:00

Hide and sneak
The chance to belly up to the (movie) bar blunts an old challenge
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"For many of us, the pleasure of drinking "adult beverages" in movie theaters used to involve bulky jackets and spacious purses. It's amazing how many cold beers one could cram into the deep pockets of an Army jacket or a roomy handbag.
Once inside the dimly lit theater, phony coughs and sneezes were broadcast to cover up the "fwoooosh" that accompanied the twirl of a twist-off or the flick of a flip-top. Slouching as low as the movie theater chairs would permit, we'd slug back the brews in long, refreshing gulps.

The best part was seeing how far down the theater the empties would rattle and roll before stopping abruptly at the feet of another moviegoer. Good times."

We'll call it the in-n-out return customer relationship. In-n-Out (a california burger chain for those of you who might be unfamiliar with the business) has an extremely popular "underground" menu of items and modifications that are not available on any printed material. All I know how to do is order a burger "animal style" to get them to put grilled onions on my burger. To be honest, I don't think I can even taste, the difference, I just do it to feel cool doing it.

Which is exactly the subtle loss that many businesses face when they make the mistake of openly offering too many services to their patrons. Besides the overhead of having to advertise and support all new services that come up as a result of popular demand, by "mainstreaming" a service, you destroy the fun of it for the people who wanted it initially.

What in-n-out does is genius. It will make any modification to it's food products that anyone could possibly conceive. It trains all its employees to be prepared to serve all these options, and even gives them institutionalized names. But it never advertises them, or makes them publically available. It boils down to this: For the people who want these things, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to have them. But when people come to in-n-out they should be coming to buy burgers, plain and simple. The simplicity of the 10 or so offerings on the menu keep people focused on what the business is about, and their institutionalized flexibility gives people no reason to complain. Meanwhile, the restaurant itself does not allow itself to get sidetracked with all of it's peripheral offerings. It doesn't divert time and attention in trying to promote new services or making other ideas profitable. It sticks to it's core competency and never has to ride any fad or style trains.

And it's perennially cool to eat there.

A lot of movie theaters get this wrong. They try to milk new concession opportunities for all they're worth and when the novelty wears off, they find themselves stuck up a creek. Like now. Rooted in a business that relies on foot traffic to sell concessions, they're in some unfavorable negotiating positions with the studios who are failing to provide them with enticing films to bring in the headcount, and with those same people they're trying lure in. All because they rode the concessions train too long and too hard, and now they don't have any other way to run their businesses. One might say they made too many concessions along the way...

HA!

Puns may not be cool, but going to the movie theater should be. And somewhere between getting people to come in the door and making buck at the end of the day, the theaters need to be concerned with their "indie" fan base who like sneaking around the theaters and working the system in little ways that keep them coming back. Whether it's sneaking in booze, or getting double features out of a well timed afternoon, theaters need to realize that these attitudes are actually incentives for people to come. And as long as those practices can be kept from becoming disruptive (like in n out does) they'll have a stronger business by taking them into account and paying them service.

Meet me at the Holodek Numba 1

2005-09-05T23:17:00.000-07:00

HoloDek promises 'movie theater for gamers'
N.H. company aims to roll out high-end facilities
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"HAMPTON, N.H. -- Video games are enticing enough, but a company here is betting that playing the games on high-speed computers with high-definition screens that literally envelop the user can be downright addictive.

HoloDek, which takes its name from the virtual recreational facility aboard TV's Starship Enterprise, has been testing its concept here in Hampton for nearly a year. Company officials say they are about to line up the financing to roll out more than 160 high-end gaming facilities over the next five years in the Northeast. They are also talking with movie theater chains about installing HoloDeks inside existing theaters."

Talk about stealing my ideas :)

Last week I was having another of my typical bouts of insomnia, and I decided to spend my sleepless hours sketching out the potential cash flow for one of my business ideas. My idea (like I've alluded to many times here) was to have a rentable space equipped with a pretty decent home theater setup. After weighing the cost of setting up each room with suitable equipment and calculating the number of hours it would likely be rented, I even priced the hourly rental cost at $5.00!

Of course my idea is to have a space that is available for more general use, but this holodek concept might have a better chance of getting off the ground. The gaming idustry has a nation of rabig of gamers whose imaginations are ripe for the capturing. In my eyes, the holodek is more a modern arcade than it is a "movie theater" for gamers as movie theaters haven't yet adapted to give it's patrons this same degree of freedom of choice (not to mention reasonable value).

Recently, I've been finding while I develop ideas (mostly through this blog) that someone (generally someone who actually has some actual influence and power) comes up with the same thought that I do right around the time that I post it. While this limits my ability to own any intellectual property, I think it encourages my innovative direction.

On that note, I'd also like to make a note of my developing thoughts on "invention". Especially given my recent experience, I don't think innovation should ever be something that is attributed to individual anythings. Innovation is always a combination of circumstance, experience, and attitude. And that's it. The right ideas catch on, not because one person has them, but because a million people have them right around the same time (even though in a practical sense one person has to actually crank out the prototypes). Intellectual property, then, in my mind is a dangerous and artificial fabrication.

Studios, for example, have a tremendous amount of intellectual property via their content libraries, and no one would ever confuse their roles with those of the actual creative forces. However, the notions of Intellectual Property have allowed the studios to leverage their massive financial resources to commandeer a lot of people's creative energy in the name of copyrights. Without actually providing any solutions, just let me say that as a culture, we need to come up with a better way of allowing people to benefit from their creativity and talent, because copyrights don't benefit the creators, they benefit the powerful.

But getting back to the topic at hand, this holodeck idea has the potential to lauch a much larger movement of group focused entertainment venues. It moves the home theaters out of the home and hopefully the people will come with them

Anime on Wheels

2005-09-03T21:21:00.000-07:00

Revolution Marketing to Give VIZ Media's Hot New Anime Movie a Unique Red Carpet Rollout
go to original article ... or email me for article text

In a joint effort with VIZ Media, Revolution Marketing has developed a 92-seat, state-of-the-art, mobile movie theater that will travel to one Wal-Mart
in each of 15 cities, allowing the big-box giant the never-before-seen
opportunity to host a theatrical premier of a DVD title they will then be
selling.

"We had never seen a direct to DVD title benefiting from a true theatrical release," said Andrew Klein, President, Revolution Marketing. "We came up with
a mobile theater tour because it brings the big screen theater release concept directly to the retailer carrying the DVD title. Where else could you see a movie, leave the theater, go buy it, take it home and watch it again. This is a truly unique concept, that I think you'll see other production companies borrow in the future."

Not being a big fan of either direct-to-dvd films or anime, I don't actually have much to say about this, other than it's a pretty cool idea. It appeals to my more general sensibilities about theatrical release events servicing smaller and more targeted audiences. This rolling theater combines some of the fun and anticipation of a travelling music tour, with the blow-away-your-senses sensationalism of a well-executed blockbuster release.

The nomad in me (and maybe the fact that Martha never seems to wanna stay put) suggests that I should keep close track of this idea. Maybe the theater I own will turn out to be an RV :)

Petaluma Part Two

2005-09-01T18:16:00.000-07:00

Local movie theater thrives despite nationwide slump
go to original article ... or email me for article text

In case anyone was wondering what has been happening with the theater those 7 teenage girls started in Petaluma.

"Theater revenues fell below last year's totals for 19 straight weeks, during which they declined by roughly 8 percent, a highly unusual phenomenon for the industry. Corkill's theaters fared better, although overall he reported a slight slip.
"We're still paying the bills and making a slight profit," he said.

The 12-screen Boulevard Cinemas opened on May 17, so it hasn't had a enough history for any long-term trends to emerge. Corkill is pleased with the turnout so far, though.

"Boulevard Cinemas is doing fine, as well as I thought it would. During the first month or two, many people came just to check the theater out, but we've had regular customers week after week. They're coming from a lot of places besides Petaluma, such as Marin County and western Sonoma County, and we expect this to happen even more," he said."

DCI Breakdown

2005-08-30T22:38:00.000-07:00

Intermittent Issues:
Digital Projection (Finally) Gets A Standard
go to original article part 1 go to original article part 2 ... or email me for article text

"Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI -- http://www.dcimovies.com/), an organization that was founded in 2002 by the major Hollywood studios, released their standards document for digital cinema in late July 2005. It outlines the essential elements of a digital projection package, from post-production at the studio to controling the lights and curtains in the theater. The document can be found at: http://www.dcimovies.com/DCI_Digital_Cinema_System_Spec_v1.pdf. This article will attempt to summarize key items from the DCI document, and try to put them into the larger context of what it means for the moviegoing public."

This article delivers as promised. I wouldn't do it justice to try to summarize it here, but if you're interested in how the DCI standard will impact the exhibition industry and don't want to read through the entire spec, this piece does the trick.

I did come up with one question while reading the article which I sent off to it's author. I'll let you know how he responds to:

"One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article was if there were any considerations in the spec for producers that don't work in the studio system -- i.e. independent film makers. How much access will the need to specialized equipment and postproduction facilities in order to participate in this digital standard? I'm not a filmmaker myself, but I think having content producers that can compete with the big studios will be better for the moviewatching economy as a whole."

My "Home" Theater Experiment

2005-08-20T22:58:00.000-07:00

A lot of important things have been coming together recently and leading me to some great ideas about how to shape the prospect of my movie theater.

First, I ran across a fantastic article a few weeks ago (that I wasn't able to blog about) by Edward Jay Epstein, 'The Hollywood Economist". Of all the articles about the recent/current box office slump, this one has been the only one that shed any real light on the issue. In addition to being far more well informed than every other critique of this issue, Epstein provides the only perspective that doesn't involve some sort of doomsday prediction. For Mr. Epstein, everything is simple evolution, for better or worse, and all there is to do is to understand the mechanics and forces that are driving this evolution.

Obviously I was intrigued. He seems to know more about what's going on than anyone, and driven to comprehend it not by some emotional attachment (like me or say the movie critics) or desire to see Hollywood fail (like the public who is pissed about being sold overpriced garbage at the movies) but by his own (almost twisted) fascination with the monster that is Hollywood. For those two things, I value his perspective very highly. I bought his book "The Big Picture: The new logic of money and power in hollywood" and it's fantastic. I know I recommend a lot of things on this blog, but this book is fabulous. I haven't finished it (I'm only about 3 chapters in) but I can't put it down. Like the way most people would read Harry Potter. The Non-fiction equivalent of crack.

In any event, the major idea of the book so far is that studio's care very little about their theatrical release platform as a way of generating revenue. All of their interest is in the endless possibility of home entertainment (well really in capitalizing on the long term success of their marketable intellectual property -- such as characters and personages that can be sold as books, movies, toys, etc). So I've been mulling over that for a while (since one of my principal ideas about having this theater and necessarily doing business with studios is that they need to have a vested interest in getting some return from operations like mine so they'll be eager to help out when they're needed)

The other thing that has been going on, is that I finally bought a home theater grade projector which is great for a couple reasons (aside from the obvious one which is that I have a totally sweet projector for watching movies.) 1.) I can finally check out the quality of these devices, train my eyes and ears to detect quality, survey their long term maintenance needs, etc. 2.) I can now test out all of my concepts about small groups watching movies.

So with all that in mind, here's the thought that has been brewing. Epstein asserts that the studios are no longer movie production factories, but giant multi-media home entertainment conglomerates. The reason they will always be relevant in the near future (until all media becomes public domain -- which doesn't appear to be the trend) is that they control all content. Even independent movies eventually end up in their domain thanks to their independent distribution arms (i.e. Miramax, Sony Classic, Fox Searchlight). But if the trend is to maximize the experience for home entertainment (which is essentially the personalization of content) the next step for public venues should be to become a client of these home entertainment services and options. It should just improve on the home experience by offering better audiovisuals, accommodating more people, and making it easy to access more content.

I envision these ubiquitous media screening rooms where you can sit down in front of a small to medium sized screen, and watch anything from the Lakers game, to your favorite TV show, to the newest Spielberg release , to your email. You can bring your own content (on DVDs, memory cards, whatever) or purchase it there by renting, downloading, buying discs, or buying a ticket to watch a premade selection. The role of the theater would be to maintain the complex schedule of how to rent out the time in the theaters, how to help people get access to whatever movies they want, maintaining the quality of the theater experience. Obviously these places would be the perfect places to sell dvds (for example, you go in to rent a movie you've never seen, but after you watch it, you decide you'd rather keep the movies, you can waive your rental after you purchase the dvd on your way out) or home theater equipment (since the venue is essentially a showroom for products) but selling these things should not be the primary business. One, despite what the profits may be, there are already companies that do it better and you can just hook up to their websites and collect a commission for helping the process. Also it removes the potentially costly and volatile dependency on specific technologies that are bound to change.

So here's one part that could be really cool about this. Since people would be choosing their own content for the theater, they become business partners. If you can capture their imaginations with this idea, they can take ownership of individual shows, or festivals (for profit or just interest) and provide innovative programming, local interest, diversity, and marketing all in one logical, scalable package. Let's say local kid wants to show his favorite cartoon series. He sells the idea to all of his friends who show up and diffuse the cost of the rental. Or the local filmmaker who wants an audience. He'll do all the necessary things to draw attention to his movies. Meanwhile, all these people are coming through your doors and enjoying all nature of cultural communal experience.

I think I'm starting to get really close to the exact model of what I want to do. This is similar to what I did with my dvd collection college, and I think that's a good sign. It's also respectful of the logic of Hollywood which is an even better sign.

And before I forget, one other thing I learned from the 100 movies Saturday, when watching the abbreviated version of movies, always fast forward instead of chapter skipping so you always get to watch the good parts. Also the "I get it" progression of influential movies to the masterpieces that refer to them is a great way to string together a day a movies (Like Ray Ray's the 10 movies that explain all of the jokes in the simpsons, or watching prince of Egypt and Indiana Jones temple of doom in one sitting). It'll certainly be something I'll put on the program for my "media centers". Our version of employee picks.

Take me out...to the movie theater

2005-08-17T19:40:00.000-07:00

Big league screen
Cinema shows Red Sox in HD
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The ticket sellers wore Red Sox caps and the usher told us to enjoy the game.

This wasn’t a typical movie night at Showcase Cinemas North. Major League Baseball has long been known as “The Show,” but that was never more true than Tuesday night when the Red Sox played the Texas Rangers at Fenway Park and NESN’s High Definition broadcast was shown on one of the big screens at the theater complex. "

I don't know if this fits in with all the stuff I usually say about a theater needing to identify it's personality and purpose, and it's probably just the fact that I love watching basketball on TV, but this is just so awesome! I can't remember if I've talked about this before, but I'm totally enchanted by the use of movie theaters as alternative venues to sports events and concerts (specifically) because they offer the benefit of making watching an event more special than putting it on TV (maybe on par with or a step up from a sports bar for games,) but can be MUCH cheaper than actually attending the event live. And the movie screen and super sound system may actually provide a BETTER viewing experience than actually going.

This reminds me that a lot of the reason I want to have a movie theater is the multimedia possibilities that you can get out of the combo of big picture/big sound/big room. My fascination with this concept is, I think, the same part of me that likes the idea of building out home theaters into commercial venues because I love home theater technology.

Maybe this only makes sense to me. But I think one of the other clearcut purposes of the modern theater should be to take all of the possibility and value of home entertainment and package it so that people can have shared experiences. Movies are the natural entry point (for me because primarily I love movies and the exhibition industry because that's what people understand) but the content shouldnt have to stop at feature length films

Conflict of Interests

2005-08-17T19:10:00.000-07:00

The show must go on, even if it's 10:30 a.m.
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"If a movie sticks around at the Garden, it's an indicator it is profitable, Ms. Stephens said. She adds that many complain that the Garden Theater shows movies for too long, but that is the key to making money.
"The longer they're there, that means we're doing well with it," she says."

This is a pretty tired topic by now, and I'm sure anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about the issue of the theater-distributor revenue split, but I thought that this statement captures the precise problem with the way the distribution/exhibition deal is structured.

Simply put, the interests of the theater should align more naturally with the people that go.

The fact that they don't is just a result of convoluted business architecture. While this is a model that has been viable for a long time, as I've expressed in recent posts, the people watching movies are no longer going to tolerate things like this in the face of all of the other choice they know is possible.

But philosophically, this is a call for more intuitive and direct business relationships. Technology is the new middleman and his cut tends to be pretty small

How J Lo saved the Movie Theaters

2005-08-09T23:07:00.000-07:00

THE HALL OF MOCTESUMA

With Maya Cinemas, a movie producer plans to bring films to Latino areas
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Katz and Esparza met in 1984 through a relative of Katz's and they have been working together ever since. They knew the film, which launched a film career for Jennifer Lopez, had been a general success. But when the box office numbers showed that the movie was selling out in theaters far from Latino communities, a lightbulb went on.

"We realized Latinos were driving miles and miles to see the movie because there were no theaters in their area," Katz said. "We started checking Latino theaters on the map. (There were) very few in Latino areas. The theater companies just didn't understand the Latino market."

Their revelation got the pair rolling."

I wasn't very excited when I first saw the headline for this article. Despite my obvious connection to the targeted community (I'm half Mexican) I thought efforts like this and like Magic Johnson's theaters in Urban Black markets were ot really up my alley or of any real interest to me. I saw them as business savvy moves, and paying attention to underserved communities, but not really about the movies themselves.

But this article put it all together for me. And what came together is really encouraging. The market for moviegoers isn't saturated, like everyone is saying it is now. The distribution and exhibition arms just don't know how to get the right content to the right people right now. People were driving miles to see a movie they could relate to. If only the movies were more readily available (closer) and if there were more movies of interest (more latino films). And that's what efforts like this are all about.

Interestingly, this is starting to sound a lot like the long tail. The only thing that's missing is that things be cheap. Hopefully they'll work that in. But since this is slowly making it's way down the long tail, it's really an idea that's forward thinking in the same way that high-technology solutions such as netflix and on-demand video are. Currently, Netflix is better at it, but you can't ignore the fact that physical movie theaters can position theselves to operate in the mode of the movie content providers of the future.

Specialty theaters are an interesting middle ground between hit-based content (hollywood blockbusters) and all the available movie content (netflix). Really, no one is going to watch all the movies ever made. They're only going to watch the onss that are interesting and that they have time for. And communities of people are more likely to be the same than they are to be different. They're just less likely to be the same as the soulless, oommercially driven 'movies' that one might make only in Los Angeles, CA :) So idetifying that subset is probably enough to keep a theater in business, even if it can't show all movies all the time.

Booyah

Tax Included!

2005-08-09T22:30:00.000-07:00

In case you didn't catch it in the comments, I got some great feedback regarding the question of whether sales tax is indeed included in the price of movie tickets. This would have been out earlier, except I have been pretty slow about checking my emal, lately :)

Here's what my well-informed anonymous contributor says:

Check your local sales tax regulations. You might be surprised to learn that theaters do, indeed, pay sales tax even if they do not appear to charge it.

For example, in the state of Florida, theaters pay sales tax on ticket sales. However, most theaters still show a price with an amount divisible by $0.25 and do not display any additional sales tax charges on the customer's receipt. A matinee price of $6.00 means the theater gets $5.63 and the state gets $0.37 (at the sales tax rate of 6.5% in my area).

So there you have it. Thank you anonymous contributor! I hope you come back often!

2005-08-03T16:51:00.000-07:00

Cinema-On-Demand: Theater as Social Software
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"I love going to the movies with people, even people I don’t know. I love to hear others’ reactions, and discuss the movie with people afterwards...
...What this means is that films can potentially be shown to smaller audiences. And this, in turn, means that those audiences could select the film that they want to view and schedule the theater in advance. Moreover, there’s no reason to think that audiences merely want to watch only new films. Imagine a small (but big enough) cadre of film buffs pitching in to watch Citizen Kane on the big screen for a Saturday night. Or how about an all-day Star Wars or Star Trek marathon?

...So, in effect, the local movie theater evolves into a kind of watering hole where audiences can reserve a time-slot and a film for their own purposes. This could prompt a change in theater architecture, from large pack-the-house-to-get-back-your-costs sardine boxes to smaller lounge-style spaces with movie controls, tables, sofas, and such organized around comfort, convenience, and the whole experience. As we move towards the “experience economy” theaters will have to consider these issues carefully."

Here are some excerpts from an group blog entry that I find really exciting. Not only necessarily because they’re ideas that are new to me, but because other people are feeling the way I do about the social element of going to the movies. Here’s what I wanted to post on their site (by the time I got to it, they were no longer accepting comments -- at least not from me).

"I discovered this post because I write a blog about movie theaters and regularly monitor relevant news sources (via google news). You’ll be happy to know what you write here is news 

In any event, the reason I have this blog is because I desperately want to own a movie theater some day. And I believe, precisely, in what you wrote about. These days, all industry coverage is about how much people hate going to the movies because of all of the various irritants present. But this celebrates all of the things that makes going to the movies… going to the movies.

So I fully support you in developing this idea, and am committed to make this happen when I have my movie theater. I’d also like to add a couple of related ideas that haven’t been mentioned yet.

Audiovisually (and not to mention socially) I think movies are actually optimally viewed in small group sizes. The high end (and even not so high end) home theaters people typically build in their homes are really the best places to watch movies. You have a better chance at getting balanced sound and optimal viewing distance and angles in more intimate rooms.

Also, when building a theater, having a lot of small screens is cheaper than building one big one (like how two 17 inch monitors is cheaper than one 25 inch monitor) and you get the best of all worlds. A theater with multiple screens can use their capacity to show 5 different movies or one movie, all at the highest possible quality. And you can capitalize on “consumer” products and the low price points they offer and make it easier to scale your business up or down depending on the particular market.

If a reasonable deal for digital distribution could be met, these low barriers to entry for theater owners could mean that small theaters could pop up everywhere and anywhere, and the capital advantage held by the big chains wouldn’t be as crucial to surviving in the industry. Anyone who could afford a home theaters had the ability to intelligently pick movies and serve their communities could start one.

And if I save up enough money, I should be able to afford a home theater."

Decisions, Decisions

2005-08-02T22:59:00.000-07:00

Consultant hired to decide whether to renovate theater or build new one
go to original article ... or email me for article text

Meanwhile....

For some communities, having a pure movie theater is still the best option for watching movies. Rural communities and less developed places will always need some sort of movie theater if they want to watch films. But it's only a matter of time and convenience until they outgrow the old mode. Theaters, like I say in my last post, need to be reimagined from the ground up. Everywhere.

Doomsday?

2005-08-02T22:31:00.000-07:00

In a theater near you: the box-office blues : Will death become theatres? : Some fear that rotten box-office revenues will lead to theatres closing. : The end of the movie is nigh : Movie critic Chris Vognar discusses the box office slump : Theaters Hope Hollywood Takes Page From This Script : Movie fans surrendering the multiplex to barbarians : Drop in moviegoers could send industry reeling

I realized something yesterday. Nobody wants to go to the movies anymore. Now don't misunderstand me here. People still want to see movies. And there are some (like me) who have always loved going to the movies and go the same way you have to go to your hometown every few years. And, as Martha pointed out there are some who go because the movie needs to be big - like when we saw Batman on the IMAX. But everyone else just goes because they have to. Because there's no other place to see a particular film. Because there's nothing else to do on a Friday night. Because there's no other place where people can go without their parents. And everyone resents the fact that they know they don't HAVE to be there, yet they are... almost against their will. From there, it doesn't take much to push people over the edge. And every one of the articles above touches on one or all of the reasons that people find to make them miserable while they are forced to go to the movies. And anyone who has an out, takes it. If they have a serviceable home theater and a netflix account, they more than make do.

It's not laziness, despite what I quoted in a previous post. It's the human exercise of gravitating towards an optimum. People want to do what's easiest, not because they don't want to do anything, but because they want to make the most out of their time and money.

The piece that Ty Burr wrote is probably the best of this bunch, and gives the industry transformation the most context, and I think the most hope.

Like any industry that has given way to it's more convenient and in some cases better suited successors, the movies as we know it have no reason to go on existing. Small restaurants that serve bad expensive food can't and shouldn't compete against McDonalds where you can get bad cheap food or any top tier restaurant where you can get good food. There's just no place for them... and right now that's what movie theaters are.

--------------------------------------

So where is there hope? For one, we need to stop doing this

"The medium has evolved, as mediums do, in the direction of ease and efficiency. If there's still a reason to go to a movie theater -- call it communal dreaming -- exhibitors are chipping away at it to make their weekly payroll."

One of the great ironies of this whole situation with theaters is that as theaters start losing viewers naturally (to the shift in home video availability, etc) they compensate for the loss by doing things that only turn more people away. They continue to raise ticket prices because they have no choice, they increase the margins on their concessions even more. They show more prominent ads when they didn't before. And now they're losing people through their own doing.

If a theater isn't going to be committed to making it easier for people to go to the movies... really easier, then it should just go out of business. Because they have to realize that people just don't need to go anymore.

So if everyone would rather watch their movies at home, why not just shut down all the theaters and let them? There are three reasons. And a theater needs to do all three of these or, like I said before, it should just close it's doors and turn off the marquis.

1.) People need to be around other people while watching movies.

If all of the world's knowledge can be put into books or on the internet, why go to universities? Because being around other people open up avenues for interpreting, understanding and enjoying that would never even be possible by yourself. Movies, as much as Hollywood may try to convince us are business, are literature. They're more accessible to most than printed books, and available on more media. People need to be able to tell other people what they thought was funny or what they thought was sad, or what blew their minds.

2.) Some movies need to be big. There are movies whose art is so large or so universal that they need to swallow you up with huge screens and immersive sounds to demonstrate that they're more than entertainment, they're modern monuments.

3.) People need to see movies they wouldn't normally see. Not only does seeing movies with fresh perspecitives, open up the world, they also remind seasoned movie-watchers of the joy of watching films. The great moments in film watching happen when they're unexpected. when you didn't think a movie would be that good, when you didn't expect that a scene would move you, when you didn't expect to root for the bad guys. If people only watch the movies they're used to watching, chances are they'll be expecting most of what they get.

And these are the things that a physical space such as a movie theater can do better than sitting at home (at least right now).

3 years ago when I first realized that I wanted to own a movie theater, I couldn't sleep because I was so excited about all the ideas I had. I wanted to have a theater that also sold home theater equipment (my other obsession) and had equipment demo rooms that doubled as movie screening rooms. The place would be able to print on-demand dvds so that literally any movie would be available to take home with you if you were suddenly inspired to watch a movie's prequel, sister film, or original source material.

I abandoned most of these ideas, because I thought that I might have to adopt a more pure definition of movie theater to have it be successful at first. But now it seems that I was right on with my first instincts. Maybe what the industry needs to evolve into is precisely the movie-megastore that would combine every imagineable way of bringing movies to people and have each individual medium benefit from the cross pollination.

The hope, as I see it, lies here in what Rick Munarriz of Motley Fool says:

"The fact that so many movie chains have either filed for bankruptcy or have been taken private in desperation doesn't bother me. In fact, if you read my article "5 Pretty Stocks in Ugly Places," you may appreciate my position that the harder a sector struggles, the more likely it is that a true innovator will emerge and reshape the industry."

If someone doesn't beat me to it, he's talking about me. I'm sure of it. I always wanted to innovate because I thought it could be done better. I didn't think the industry would ever need saving. But now that it has to happen, I want to be a part of it.

Tax Included?

2005-07-17T23:33:00.000-07:00

Movie tax: A ticket to fixing an inequality
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"I've actually seen two movies in the last month. I paid $6.50 for one I saw alone and $13 for the other movie I saw with a date. Out of 40 or so transactions on my credit card, these two were the only ones that ended in even dollars. In other words, no one was adding on the normal 7 percent sales tax. In fact, there is no sales tax on movie tickets at all.

Essentially, seeing a movie in a theater has a tax advantage that is not shared by Blockbuster or Best Buy. Renting a movie or purchasing a DVD will incur the wrath of the sales tax, while actually going to the theater to see a movie will not."

That's interesting. Did you know that there's no sales tax on movie tickets? At least not in North Carolina. I wonder if it's true everywhere else.

I'd just like to point how sad it is that even with this competitive advantage, theaters are still being dominated by competitors who don't have it.

Comparison Shopping

2005-07-17T23:17:00.000-07:00

In a theater near you: the box-office blues
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The grand total for a family night out could wind up costing as much as a month of cable and Internet access."

A couple of comparisons:

One night out at the movies for a family of 4 = One month of Cable and Internet access
One night out to the movies for a couple = A month worth of dvd rentals via NetFlix

At some point it has to start making more business sense to drop the price of some part of this equation so that people will still want to come. The article also points out that

"As long as there are unmated members of the species," said former Sony Pictures Entertainment President Mel Harris, "people will still go to the movies."

Maybe it should just be cheaper/easier for them. I guess that's what Loew's Click at a Flick is about...

The Human Touch

2005-07-17T22:55:00.000-07:00

Wanted: Ushers to shush yakkers
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"So, here's a suggestion for NyBlom and all the other cineplex owners out there: Bring back the usher who does more than just tear tickets and sweep up.
Even more than seats with drink holders, I'd like to see the return of cineplex employees in uniform standing in the theater with a penlight at the ready. Instead of forcing audience members to "shush" a theater yakker, let the usher step in.

There's a much better chance that someone will knock it off when asked by a theater employee, especially one who has the power to eject someone from the show. This doesn't mean we need etiquette Nazis stalking the aisles. But a subtle courtesy patrol would be appreciated. It happens in good restaurants and elegant hotel lobbies. Why not in movie theaters looking to create a special experience"

This is pretty close to an idea that I was recently thinking about (coincidentally, or perhaps not) for use at the Camera theater they refer to. I had just finished reading an article about how they planned to reopen it, but that all of their theaters were suffering.

One of my ideas/suggestions was going to be to not only offer the obligatory anti-cell-phone promotional material at the beginning of the movie, but also to cut a message that encouraged people to introduce themselves to the people they were sitting next to. This might diffuse early hostility and get people to recognize that they were sharing the theater with people that they didn't come with. In addition to that, hopefully it would get people to enjoy one of the principal benefits of coming to the movies at all: A shared experience.

But this is a pretty good idea in it's own right. It's good PR for the theaters to let people know that they're taking care of their own business, and I think it might make the employees jobs more interesting and meaningful (if done correctly). I'm all for having jobs be less about menial specialization and more overall responsibility.

Laziness... and smellovision

2005-07-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

Making scents of box-office slump
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"But there were always bad movies. There were always dumb movies. Most movies have always been geared to teens. But our selective memory chooses to remember only the good movies.

Commercials are a serious problem. No argument there.

Cost is important, but DVDs are not cheap, and neither is a home entertainment center.

Young people have been acting rudely in darkened movie theaters since the beginning of time. It's the nature of the beast. Turn the lights down, and teenagers will make noise.

So, if it's not the quality of the movies, the cost of popcorn or the noisy teens, what is it?

It's laziness.

People have gotten very comfortable in their homes, and they need a good reason to leave it."

Another way of putting it all. I thought it at least worth repeating

Loews, AMC, and Farmer John

2005-06-25T11:59:00.000-07:00

Movie theater chain AMC to buy Loews Cineplex
go to original article ... or email me for article text

I swear this was supposed to have already happened...

"The deal will consolidate AMC's already formidable presence in large, urban markets. AMC is known for its huge movie complexes -- nearly three-quarters of its screens are located in "megaplexes" that have 14 or more movie screens -- and a large number of its theaters are located in California, Florida and Texas.
Most of Loews' theaters are in major metropolitan markets. The company lays claim to the biggest share of the market in New York City, Chicago, Detroit and Mexico City.

Once the deal is completed, the new AMC Entertainment will have about 5,900 movie screens in 450 theaters, including its interests in various joint ventures, and be run by AMC Chairman and Chief Executive President Peter Brown.

AMC rival Regal Entertainment, which operates Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres and Edwards Theatres, has more than 6,200 screens in more than 550 locations and has theaters spread more broadly across suburban areas."

In any event, I didn't realize there was such a clear industry divide between the urban and suburban. I think it's kind of neat. :) Maybe we'll see some interesting divergent evolution as a result. I'm not really sure what I have in mind, but one has to think that a business that operates in the big city has to be different from one that runs in the 'burbs.

And one other thing this seems to highlight is that there appears to be no market in the rural areas of the world that wouldn't be able to support multi/megaplexes. I think the rural markets are something that could end up being the "long tail" of the exhibitor market. While the big chains are fighting off box office slumps and people that would prefer to watch their movies at home, the people in rural areas may actually need movie theaters to be an affordable way to watch high quality first run films. For people who either can't afford, or don't have access to fancy home theaters, the community supported movie theaters are the best way for them to enjoy movies.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been feasible. Prints are a commodity and can't be sent to remote areas when they could generate a lot more money and exposure if they were played in NYC as opposed to the middle of Alaska. Furthermore, theater economics and way box office profits are shared make it impossible for a small (probably single screen theater) to survive or turn a profit. Especially when the population is small and you can't count on a consistent flow of people.

But I think the technology has made the impossible possible. If movies are going to be distributed in a digital format, you no longer needs physical film prints. Copies of the movie will no longer be scarce and can be shipped anywhere, at will. (Arguably, this already happens with internet piracy and dvd piracy, which just goes to show...) Improved home theater technology makes it possible to create a megaplex quality experience for a fraction of the people at a fraction of the price (I'd estimate you could do it very well for 7K-10K and a typical megaplex screen comes in at 500K-1 Million)

I think this makes room for a new kind of theater that I call the "microplex" (which is a combination of the standard popular progression: mini, multi, mega and this wave of cinema I've been following in San Francisco called microcinema). It would consist of a 3 or 4 low cost, high quality screening rooms, and be completely digital. The profit structure would be such that they wouldn't need concessions (much like some of the small screens I saw in Paris) which would bring their overhead down, but they'd have enough variety and be able to show movies for long enough that they'd still manage to turn a profit. These microplexes could fit anywhere and any job. Whether it's bringing big budget movies to remote communities or more convenient locations and closer to small neighborhoods in big cities or bringing arthouse/foreign films to large communities that don't have enough of a market to support one of Landmark's houses or a Regal Cine'arts.

I actually have a great plan for creating these, that was inspired by my trip to Maui. We spent part of our time after the Film Festival at the tip of the island in Hana which is a beautiful coastal rainforest. There's no theater there and the nearest community that's large enough to support one is 3 hours away. But why not build one in Hana?

A small amount of capital (10K) from some source (Martha's peace corps experience came in handy here when she suggested Peace Corps grants) would get it started by paying for euipment and maybe some permit fees. Then you could get a piece of land or commercial space donated by the local government, a private landholder, a resort, or by the community. Then the community could all come together to build the structure over a couple of months (hopefully using local building techniques and traditions that preserved the culture of the community). Voila! Anything from Star Wars to Whale Rider to The Real Dirt on Farmer John could play there.

This has gotten a little out of hand. It was originally going to be one line long... but all of the rest of this just flowed out. I have plenty more ideas on this subject, though, so if you have any questions or feedback, I'd love to talk.

America Loves It's Living Room

2005-06-25T10:04:00.000-07:00

Home beats theater for movie viewing, poll says
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Almost three-fourths of Americans say they would prefer to stay home and watch a movie on their DVD player, VCR or pay-per-view.
That's more than three times the number, 22 percent, who said they prefer to watch films at a theater, an AP-AOL poll found.

Young adults, single people and those with college degrees were most likely to say they preferred going to the movie theater."

I guess there's at least one reason more people should go to college :) I suppose this makes sense. The people who are unlikely to prefer going to the movie theater are families (who have to spend 50-100 dollars every time out or have comfortable homes) and elderly people for whom going to the movies may be extremely inconvenient. It's also unsurprising in light of people who feel like this. I don't really know if there's much that theaters can do about people disliking being around other people. I feel it's more of a cultural epidemic than a condition of being in movie theaters. In any event, I wish more people liked going to the movies :)

I also found this equally interesting.

"Most Americans think movie stars are poor role models, and almost half say movies generally aren't as good as they used to be.

Movie stars don't set a good example, said Earl Ledbetter, a movie fan who lives in Ventura, Calif. "They just don't have the morals. They marry and divorce, sleep around a lot."

It's fascinating that 1.) American's seem to be so caught up in the gossip about celebrities, yet so out of touch with the realities that apply to both their lives and those of celebrities. Marriage, divorce, and promiscuity are prevalent in all of American life, and maybe it's not a question of moral fortitude, but of difficult internal conflicts that our culture has pushed everyone into. 2.) That judging other people's actions is not only viewed as acceptible, but as laudable.

Personally, I think it's a problem that's deeply ingrained in the free market mentality that our society is built around. But the simplified version, is the way the media capitilizes on our good natured interest in being close to people to create a market out of other people's lives.

None of this is particularly relevant to the issue of movie theaters, so I'll get off the soapbox. But I'm starting to think American culture is making it really hard to want to go to the movies.

Theater Going Rage

2005-06-24T23:25:00.000-07:00

A few choice words for movie-theater chatterers
go to original article ... or email me for article text

In what would turn out to be superb timing, I recently received this feedback to some of my suggestions for the nationwide downturn in theater attendance (generally referred to these days as the box office slump).

"I think much of the attendance downturn at movie theaters has to do with the environment at the theaters. First, the public seems to have the opinion that it's alright to dump trash and uneaten snacks on the floor and in the seats, something most adults would not do in their own home but feel it's acceptable at theaters; and, they allow their children to observe this disrepectful behavior and do likewise through their formative and adult years. Second, moviegoers no longer have the common courtesy to remain silent during the movie, whether it's unwarranted comments or explanations during the movie, ringing cell phones, failure to control disruptive behavior by infants or young children, and loud, obnoxious eating of noisy snacks like popcorn or nachos. Who in the world decided it was a good idea to begin serving messy nachos at theaters? Why should anyone subject themselves to this abuse at a movie theater when we can watch the same movies in the comfort and silence of or own homes. I believe that many former moviegoers feel the same way and have expressed their opinion via declining box office attendance."

Meanwhile, I was planning on posting about rather scathing editorial piece about movie theater "chatterers". Here are some of the highlights.

"So, in lieu of invoicing you for 113 minutes of my life, I’m letting you know – sweetly –- that during the movie, you TALKED EVERY SECOND. (Sorry, my caps stick sometimes.)

Judging from the flakes of Dolby Digital sound that sneaked past your conversation, “Crash” seemed to be about coping with deeply flawed individuals in Los Angeles. How’s that for coincidence?

Here’s a bigger coincidence: Profiling seemed to be another theme of “Crash,” and you neatly fit a movie-talker profile: A long-married couple who check Blackberries during the movie but don’t share popcorn, arm rests or enough common interests anymore to carry on a conversation in your empty nest, which one of you wants to sell now before real estate prices tank, and you worry about how you’ll continue putting brioche on the table during your demographically irrelevant golden years."

Not surprisingly, I didn't find Mr. Mehlman's intolerant diatribe to be very funny (I'm not even sure he intended for it to be, I can only assume since apparently he worked on Seinfeld). Nor, unfortunately, did I find it to be particularly insightful or to provide any useful criticism. He made one point (that he was upset that a nearby couple was talking during the movie). Also he made no effort to solve the problem (by asking the couple to lower their voices) and took up arms against all of humanity - including himself - in their desire to want to express themselves to one another.

My response to both the people submitting the complaints and to the people who are offending them would be the same. Everyone just needs to be a little more considerate of one another and what the other people might be going through.

Dark spaces, much like the metal and glass referred to in Crash, often have the unfortunate effect of creating a feeling of isolation. It never occurs to drivers that the person who cut them off may be on the way home to pick up their sick son, or maybe just doesn't realize they did anything bad. Just like people in movie theaters forget that other people might be hearing what they're saying or that people have to clean up the popcorn they spill on the floor. It always helps to have a friendly reminder that other people are sharing the experience, but anger only breeds more anger and a worse experience for everyone.

In light of this, rather than put up the signs and pre-show messages for deterring in-theater cell phone use that movie-goers clamor for (more than anything else), I'm going to make it a point to address the underlying issue that people are actually struggling with (and that the feedback I received astutely points out): 4.) consideration for other movie goers. Issuing orders to turn off cell phones doesn't make anybody happy. It makes the people who complain feel entitled to have their demands met and makes them feel more unsatisfied and more irritated. And it makes the people who respect the rule feel like something is being taken away from them.

But encouraging people to maintain a level of mutual respect and consideration for all of their fellow patrons makes everyone's experiece much more pleasant. People feel more comfortable talking to each other rather than storing up rage. People realize how pleasant and understanding other people actually are. And when someone makes a mistake, it doesn't throw people over the edge.

That's what Crash was about, by the way (Not to be too much of a smartass, but I know because Paul Haggis was at the screening I watched :) ). Not deeply flawed individuals. But compassionate people who needed to learn to be tolerant of one another.

Desperate Last Words

2005-06-14T16:21:00.000-07:00

Martha pointed out to me that my last few couple of posts were either a little silly or not very meaty. Since I recently solicited the girls responsible for Boulevard Theaters in Petaluma, I desperately wanted to put up some good content to impress them, and hopefully keep them coming back and giving me their valuable input.

Unfortunately, however, time has caught up with me in the worst way, and I'm barely squeezing in all the work I need to finish before we head off to Maui for the Maui Film Festival (where I won't have a computer and probably won't be able to blog).

So if you girls are reading this, I promise I had all sorts of very current, very relevant, and very interesting things for you to read, I just couldn't manufacture the time...

But they'll all be here when I come back from vacation!

And I'll even throw in some more detail about what this blog's purpose is, since I was feeling a little shy when I was actually in Petaluma and didn't do a great job of describing it. Until then, I'm off to Maui!

A New Meaning to Home Theater...

2005-06-07T11:39:00.000-07:00

go to original article (HOME MOVIE THEATER) ... or email me for article text
go to original article (Clements Family) ... or email me for article text

Ideas like these are going to pub me out of a job. :)

But seriously, Here's something, and I think I might make it part of one of the things I believe about movie theaters (even though it's more about people). The soul is creative, and will gravitate towards being so. Moreover, others will gravitate towards the work that is soulful. Building a theater and the community that compliments it is a soulful activity, and people will appreciate it. These articles prove that.

3.) If you build it (and I mean _you_ actually _build_ it yourself) they will come.

Ok I stole that from a movie. But it's true.

What he said

2005-06-07T11:35:00.000-07:00

Theater chains slump after downgrade
go to original article ... or email me for article text

Miraculously bringing two of my last three posts together, and one of the angles that I forgot to mention in my last post: stock prices

""We believe that the tenet of 2%-3% annual attendance growth in the box office is no longer valid given the fragmentation of entertainment options and the improvement in the home entertainment experience," Reid wrote in a note to investors.

The industry's "value proposition" is becoming less attractive, he continued, as prices of DVD players and videos, digital TVs, etc. continue to decline while box office ticket prices rise."

Value proposition! That's what I was talking about. Ok,this analyst, at the very least, has eloquence on his side. And I can't say I disagree with what he says. Point: Analyst. And where do they come up with all these buzz phrases? :)

Malaise

2005-06-06T15:08:00.000-07:00

Beating the box office blahs
The Memorial Day weekend gave Hollywood a much-needed lift. But can it last?
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Don't expect those huge sighs of relief coming from movie industry executives this week to last."

The overall box office tallied $128.3 million, off a huge 30 percent from the comparable weekend a year ago. It marked the 15th consecutive weekend of lower grosses than last year. "It feels like the movie business is in a malaise," Universal Pictures Chairman Stacey Snider told USA Today

When I first saw this word on one of the title card's for Kevin Smith's Clerks I didn't have any idea what it meant. But it says it all. Or maybe a more timely reference from Star Wars is more appropriate. "I have a bad feeling about this."

The bad feeling is inescapable. Every angle I keep tabs on (from studio briefings to video rental news) is projecting the same sinking feeling about the state of the movie industry. I wouldn't put too much stock in the apparant slump in Box office receipts and attendance figures from last year (seeing as it was a record year, there was probably nowhere to go but down), but something scary is happening. All my previous posts on the subject have resisted admitting any fear, but I think there's something to be afraid of.

Although it's not as scary as it may seem.

It's not the kind of fear that comes from a disruptive technology being introduced. It's not like on demand video appeared out of nowhere and made people fundamentally change the way they think about their lives. The convergence of movies into the home has been happening, slowly and steadily through a multitude of sources. Network premieres on ABC. Television premieres on TBS. Shrinking DVD release windows. Pre-viewed dvd sales at blockbuster. BitTorrent pirating on the internet. The idea has been around in our collective minds for a long time. It's only now that it's catching up to the industry

Here's who should be scared. The studios should be scared that they've painted themselves into a corner by alienating the theaters (not the chains) that show their wares. They've made it so impossible to make any money off of showing a studio release that it finally became too much for the moviegoers to handle. Between standing in line and sitting through ads and paying up to 10.50 for a single movie ticket (all things that theater owners are practically powerless to change) The thought of staying home to watch a movie has become resoundingly more attractive than going out. Although, as the article says, the studios may have little incentive to change their complicated revenue sharing schemes because they make their money on DVD releases.

The owners of theater chains should be scared that they overvalued the market for bad, big budget movies and diverted all of their resources to collaborate with the studios to saturate it with crap. And it's backfiring like a Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez collaboration. Big budget films are losing all credibility with any sort of savvy movie audience because they know how prone a studio will be to putting out anything that will sell (regardless of it's quality). And part of the reason for this is the fact that the theaters even play these movies. Maybe the big chains had to sell their souls at some point just to make any sort of deals with the studios. Like to get at the good content, they had to screen the bad as well. But showing bad movies does more damage to their negotiating position with their patrons than perhaps they anticipated. They should learn from this when renegotiating their stance with distributors and when choosing what to market.

"At some point, there will have to be some kind of ticket-price adjustment just to get people back into theaters," said Dergarabedian.

It's. About. Time.

I'll resist them temptation to reiterate this, commonly visited, topic. But that's not all.

Theater owners responded then with giveaways and other gimmicks to lure audiences to the theater.

"They would use any promotion you could think of just to...get people off their couches," said Bucksbaum. He said one theater gave away dinner dishes; another installed seatbelts to convey excitement.

I'm all for this. Every year at SHOWEST they give away awards for the most effective and fun theater-specific marketing campaigns, and it sounds like the most fun part about running a movie theater. It not only engages the community into coming, but it endears the theater and the film to the theater workers that promote them. Increased levels of faith all around.

On a somewhat related note, I really like this Bucksbaum character (quoted above). I recently came across his name when my uncle (who is more immersed in movie culture and movie going than anyone I know, and thus my hero) told me that his theater, "The Crest" in LA is his favorite. You should definitely check out the website and history of the theater. Bucksbaum used his life savings to buy his theater AND works at a box office tracking firm. Thus, he is also my hero.

I was going to write a dedicated post to the Bucksbaum and the crest, but after seeing his name in this article, the measure of coincidence was just too high for me to resist. :)

Where the Experts at?

2005-06-02T13:37:00.000-07:00

Star power
The new 'Star Wars' smashes box-office records across the nation. Local theater managers are thrilled by the huge and enthusiastic crowds.
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Some industry analysts have forecast the demise of blockbusters, saying fans would rather wait for the DVD to come out than stand in long lines for expensive tickets.

But local theater owners, like Saunders of MoviE-town, say the problem is more basic: bad movies.

“You just never know what the studios are going to put out,” said Saunders, who has owned the theater since 1999.

“It’s not a reflection of the (state of the) industry; if you put out a bad movie, nobody’s going to come.”"

I was reading this fantastic article about IDEO -- and how they're becoming the model for the modern business consulting firm -- recently and it was discouraging how little the corporate entities that drive the production of goods for thousands of people actually know about us. So one has to wonder, what are these industry analysts doing with all of their time, why are they so wrong and why can't their credibility somehow be taken away. I suppose the only question (of those three) that is of any relevance is really the last one. Why theater owners' opinions carry seemingly less weight than unnamed and unspecified analysts is an unfortunate flaw of the journalistic system. Or perhaps more basically, a flaw in the way humans apply biases. Someone should do something to properly balance the public perception of in-the-trenches experts as opposed to so called, macro level "experts". It needs to be communicated that while these analysts probabaly have the benefit of a widened scope, along with that naturally comes the disadvantage of being much further away from the actual issues.

I, for one, believe the theater managers :)

The Loaner

2005-06-01T23:13:00.000-07:00

Outdoor movie theater venue to open this summer
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"With the New Malibu Theater closed for several months due to the recent fire, the City Council granted permission on Monday for the theater operator to screen first-run films at Malibu Bluffs Park during the summer.

According to Wallace Theaters, which runs New Malibu Theater, films will be screened from June 17 to Sept. 4 on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays at approximately 8:15 p.m. Regular admission will be charged and there will be concessions. People will have to bring their own chairs and blankets.

City staff will negotiate an agreement with Wallace Theaters to finalize details for the summer screenings. "

This is a nice trend for the summer. All Movie theaters on the coast should be required to do this during the warm months :)

Special Edition Movie Screenings

2005-05-31T13:40:00.000-07:00

Digital film revolution poised to start rolling
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"'A current 35-millimeter film projector costs about $30,000 and lasts 35 years,' says NATO head Fithian. "Digital costs upward of $100,000, and I doubt it will last 25 years. You're giving us something akin to the first generation of a cell phone or a laptop."

His organization took a tough negotiating stand in November. It passed a resolution insisting that all of the major studios — the companies expected to benefit most from digital — finance in some way all the costs to buy and install digital cinema equipment for any theater that wants it. In addition, theater owners want the right to decide what models of gear to take and then want to own the equipment when the financing period is up.

What's more, NATO wants studios to guarantee that they'll offer digital versions of their movies to any theater that has a digital projector."

This is a comparison, sadly, I'd never actually thought about. It is going to suck when the second and third generation projectors roll out at a quarter of the price and twice the quality 10 years down the line. There's a huge amount of capital involved and the theaters absolutely cannot afford to be early adopters in this case.

Of course, if they aren't, then there won't be any adopters. That's why it's such an apt analogy to pick this as a chicken and egg situation.

-------

But now that Star Wars has gotten everyone excited about digital again (my newswire has been overflowing with articles in high profile publications detailing the exhibitors' transition to digital projection) here's something that I haven't actually heard anyone talking about. One thing that I found was really enjoyable about the film festivals I've attended has been the presence of the directors, writers and actors and their availability for questions. Everyone knows how much interacting with them can enrich a film, so booking the creative talent behind a film is usually a something lots of theaters would like to do (although few have the power to do so).

The digitization of movie houses, though, demolishes one of the primary barriers preventing filmmakers from doing Q&A sessions _everywhere_ a film plays.With all of the techological advances made in teleconferencing and long distance learning technology, Once there are digital projectors in all theaters, there is very little to stop a directors from holding a nationwide simultaneous press conference with every single one of the people viewing the film!

I mean, is anyone else excited about this?!

Everybody would win. People would connect to film makers and give them valuable feedback. The directors could open up their vision even beyond the potential flaws of the film. People could see what it means to other people in other parts of the world. Imagine a panel of the Spielberg, and Tom Cruise being beamed down onto a movie screen once the credits of War of the Worlds roll. Then people in theaters across the country can step in front of cameras and submit questions about the movie. The best, or most common ones could be shown in front of the whole country and the filmmakers could answer while behind the scenes footage or supplemental material played next to them while they answer the question.

All the talk is about alternative content like concerts and meetings. But why not make the alternative content about the real human connections long promised by telecommunications technology. The production and sales of special edition dvds have shown how hungry the public is for "special feature" content. If the movie exhibition industry is so threatened by the growth of the home viewing business, why not beat them out by providing an even richer experience while keeping amplifying the experience and spirit of communal viewing. Of course this stuff would be ready made for the dvd release, but how much more compelling would it be if _YOU_ could end up on the dvd.

And it'll finally reward all those people who sit in the theater until the final credits roll.

A Balanced Perspective

2005-05-15T12:07:00.000-07:00

Shhh! The Ads Are About to Start
Pre-Movie Commercial Creep Is Nothing New, but Some Folks Aren't Taking It Sitting Down
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Not all venues are going the way of 'The 2wenty.'

Landmark Theatres, an art house chain with locations in the District and Bethesda, runs 10 to 12 minutes of commercials and trailers, but chooses spots -- like a series of independent shorts sponsored by Stella Artois beer -- that mirror the spirit of the indie and foreign films on the marquee. "We've had a lot of positive feedback because of showing the shorts," says Ray Price, Landmark's vice president in charge of marketing. "We actually had one patron who went in and watched the short, then tried to leave because he thought the movie was over."

Most of the coverage on this blog about Movie Theater Advertising (which is quickly becoming one of the hottest issues in this arena) has been one-sidedly negative. This article continues to point out many of those same negative sentiments and lots of interesting numbers about the market that the exhibitors are trying to capture and the magnitude of moviegoers response. But it also visits how to do it right.

Advertising is based on what I consider to be a extremely noble idea. You're connecting people who want to make and do things with people who want what they make and would like to support those people as their patrons. On top of that, I'm a fan of how advertising on TV and the internet support useful communication and entertainment media, more things that people want.

This sort of thing embodies both of those ideas and in doing so, succeeds (measured by people's positive response) where typical pre-show advertising fails.

Why should the kids have all the fun?

2005-05-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

Beer and wine: Coming soon to a theater near you?
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"'This isn't a theater that's showing Disney movies and bringing in blockbuster-type stuff," she said. "It's an older crowd, and if an individual wants to see an independent show at the Plaza Frontenac and wants a glass of wine in there, I think that's perfectly fine.

As for the Tivoli Theatre, Resnick said no alcohol would be served during its midnight showings, which is when the theater receives the majority of its underage audience. Like restaurants and bars, theater staff would card individuals purchasing alcohol."

The idea of serving alcohol at movie theaters had fallen out of fashion (or at least off of my list of things that are really important in this business) with me because I viewed alcoholic beverages simply as higher margin concessions products. If you read the blog, you can probably get a sense for how I feel about building a movie theater on concession sales.

However, I spun off on a really interesting line of thought after I read this article regarding the movement to bring alcohol into select St. Louis area theaters . This quote recognizes a long understood segmentation of the movie going public into the family-oriented, and the adult. It always seemed a little strange to me that theaters and multiplexes all seemed to cater to the family oriented group considering how all of the buying power resided in the adult group. I eventually realized that "family films" were more often than not responsible for the highest attendance and thus the largest amounts of revenue.

But now I realize that I wasn't carrying out the reasoning far enough. One might presume that greater public response to family oriented films indicated that more people were interested in seeing them. But now it's not that at all. People aren't more interested in family oriented films (despite the sweeping conservative trends that call for "family values"). In the end, it would seem, that there's more money to be made in the family arena because the marketing dollar will be more effective when selling this films.

But here's the part that really bothers me. Who does the studio marketing machine feel it's important to target? Kids. And generally the younger population. Which begs the question, why would you target kids? Because they're the easiest to sell and don't know any better.

It may not seem like rocket science, but I think it's the really importantant observation. Basically, the Hollywood marketing strategy(and if I felt like more of an authority, I would say the American marketing strategy) is to proudly boast about the virtues of whatever they're selling until they start to see a response in sales. And even if they're lying or wrong, there's no one to call them on it because they call the ensuing response a "market" and use that as their justification.

They're banking on the fact that people will believe things are what they want them to be and buy them regardless, rather than evaluate them for what they are and exercise their discretion. And the people this works the best on is the young crowd who have the least experience distinguishing one thing from the other.

The reason this bothers me is that it's more effective than it's sinister exploitative surface seems to indicate. It would seem like the problem would only manifest itself in the occasional bad movie, or bad trailer that doesn't really describe what the feature is about. That the only negative outcomes would be a couple of moviegoers getting burned and learning their lesson the hard way that you can't believe everything a marketing campaign tells you. But it has shaped the face of the whole exhibition industry. The prevalence of the multi and megaplexes that cater to "family oriented" movie goers are around precisely because their ease of exploitation has trickled down into "smarter" business for the theaters.

And as a result, adults have nowhere to go for films.

Luckily, I think the trend is reversing itself. I see the industry-wide recognition of the earning potential of independent films (and hence the subsequent presence of an independent distribution branch at each major studio) as one signal that people are starting to realize that adults want to go to the movies. I think the rising trend of including alcohol on the list of things you can enjoy with a movie signals the same thing.

Movies are not just entertainment, and like literature and the printed media, there is a place for film and going to the movies in everyone's lives. It's the exhibitors' turn to start reacting. Just like the megaplex was a reaction increasing demand for blockbuster general appeal films, there needs to be a response to the huge potential for films that interest individual groups and even individual people.

The Quiet Revolt

2005-05-12T00:03:00.000-07:00

Lost Crusade
go to original article

"Last weekend's box office turned out to be significantly worse than the studios' original Sunday estimates -- which had been dismal enough in their own right. Twentieth Century Fox's Kingdom of Heaven, which is believed to have cost between $120 million and $185 million to produce, earned just $19.6 million domestically, according to final figures from Exhibitor Relations. Reporting on the downturn in theater attendance, which has produced 11 consecutive weeks of lower box-office results than last year, today's (Tuesday) New York Times asked, 'Are people turning away from lackluster movies, or turning their backs on the whole business of going to theaters?'"

I was telling Martha, the other day, that I had noticed recently that I was just not getting excited about the movies that were coming out. It used to be that every trailer for an epic or big budget action movie was a must see event for me. I couldn't stop myself for standing in line all day for the Armageddon's, the Mission Impossible's, the Desperado's and the like.

But these days, what I consider comparable fare just doesn't do it for me. I had little to no desire to see King Arthur, or Alexander. And I haven't exactly walked out of many Hollywood produced movies totally fired up like when I wanted to eradicate every alien I saw after ID4.

My first thought was that I must be starting to outgrow it. This was a terrible, gut wrenching thought. If there comes a point in people's lives when they're no longer moved by films, then everything I know is just wrong. So I avoided thinking about it and just kept looking for movies, (with a pronounced leaning toward the independently produced fare) that I could get excited about. And I was successful enough to keep my mind off of it.

But reading this box office report puts some things into focus for me. It's not just me. There seems to be a collective ambivalence about the movies available right now. The selection right now, is actually not bad, when you think about it. You've got a historical Ridley Scott epic, a fun horror thriller, a quirky cult following sci-fi film. Nicole Kidman is on screen, with Sean Penn, Sin City is still around. So why are the theaters so empty? The state of films is certainly not worse than when Titanic was the ONLY thing showing and people's repeat 3-hour viewings drove it to the top of the all time box office charts.

To answer the question posed by the New York Times, I think it's less about the lackluster films and more about people turning away from the business of going to movie theaters. Don't get me wrong, the lackluster films have everything to do with it (it's telling that every 'successful' film in the past few months has dropped 50% of its attendance the week after it premieres). But there is a lot more to it. I passionately believe that it's not because there's no place for moviegoing in today's culture. But people don't want to go to the movies right now. And why would they want. There are so many films to see. It's hard to tell what's good because all trailers have been reduced to using the same generic dramatic devices and marketing techniques. It's an expensive experiment to actually try to go to see what's good when going to a movie in San Francisco costs you 10.50. And you still have to sit through ads. And buy popcorn that is marked up 1000%. When you can just wait to buy the movie on dvd in 3 months for the price of two movie tickets. Or better yet get it on netflix. Or better yet, download the pirated version for free.

When the alternatives are this compelling it makes it virtually impossible to go to the movies . And this includes the film lovers. The generations of people who are raised on movies and can't ever get enough, can't stand to pay to see a film at their local multiplex.

And the various sections of the business point at all the places along the way. Exhibitors will tell you that shortening theatrical windows dilute their market. The studios say that piracy is threatening artists' ability to benefit from their craft. But these are trends that have been made possible by improved technology and new media. Stamping them out is the farthest thing from the answer. The whole problem is that people know what it can be like, and they're disgusted that the exhibition industry would ever try to sell them anything less.

Without even knowing it, the public has turned against the industry of going to the movies. And as shepherds of this industry, the studios are the ones that need to organize everyone and take action. And not with ridiculous campaigns to stop pirates. (As an aside, the only way to stop pirates is to make their work meaningless, to be better at their game than they are. People obviously want downloadable movie content fast. Why not make it available. Only the most shortsighted viewpoint will really believe that this will diminish box office performance). The studios and distributors have long held all the negotiating power that limits the way exhibitors are able to do business. Since the vast proportion of the benefit generated in the industry has fallen to them, so does the responsibility.

-Studios/Distributors need to do something to allow movie theaters to reverse the epidemic of skyrocketing ticket prices. Bring the movie ticket back down to the point where going to the movies doesn't feel like a major investment. People will demand less from their movies, enjoy them more, and be willing to experiment more.

-Theaters need to drop the ads and studios need to help. Subsidize film rentals that don't include preshow ads or flat out require that preshow ads not be shown with films

-For gods sake, stop the marketing blitzes. Nobody responds them any more, and any marginal benefit they create by driving people to the movies is totally lost in the production cost they escalated and the long term effects of escalating marketing costs (and in desensitizing the entire civilized public. People can tell when they're being manipulated and they don't like it. So even if it worked in the past, and still seems to work, it really doesn't.

-Divert the anti-piracy efforts to creating a legal means for downloadable movie content.

-Improve the quality of films! Most studios have caught on to the profitability potential of independently produced film making and all have independent distribution arms. If you're not going to make anything good, just don't make anything and please stop selling it. Just keep buying and distributing the films that people actually cared to make. It'll work. I promise

-Establish an identity for the exhibition portion of the film industry. And apply the necessary resources to laying it down in practice. People need to know why they should come back to the movies. And right now there's no practical reason to do so. But people want the movie theater experience. And that has to be delivered to them

This needs to happen. When the box office continues to plummet, the studios are going to have to make a decision. Do they continue with their short-sighted designs to nickel and dime everyone they do business with and squeeze out every opportunistic cent they can. Or do they step up and ensure that their industry has a future by biting some bullets and reshaping it for an eager public.

For the record, I don't think the studios will change. Episode III will come in just like John Fithian says and save the day. But the industry will still be charging toward a messy end. Nothing's unfixable, even the continued decay of exhibition, but the sooner the studio's realize their responsibility the better. For everyone. There's everything to gain.

And while we're on the topic of ads...

2005-05-07T23:32:00.000-07:00

Sponsorship on the silver screen
Pre-movie theater ads annoy some, but they could be here to stay
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Regal Entertainment, the largest theater chain in the country and most ambitious adopter of screen advertising, uses a 20-minute block of ads and behind-the-scenes promos of new movies and TV shows. The company spent $70 million on a network of digital projectors that beam this block into its theaters via satellite. They call this "The 2wenty."

Arbitron, the audience measurement company, did a 2003 study of commercials and movie theaters that's become a benchmark for the industry. No surprise - and despite evidence to the contrary (including other surveys) - they found you love screen advertising. They even have a phrase to describe you:

'Captive audience.'"

I, for one, would have to question the wisdom of this particular 70 million dollar investment. I mean, come on. I understand that theaters need to find innovative ways to widen the profit margins in a tough business, so there's a huge impetus to viewing this optimistically and jumping on any survey that appears to support your cause. But this, to me, seems pretty inexcusable. To make that kind of investment and roll out that many projectors, there was obviously no looking back. This wasn't any sort of "try it out to see how people feel about it" experiment (and judging from people's reactions, it should have been). This was a "we'll force them to get used to it because they have no other choice".

Maybe in the end, it's better for everyone, and this is saving the general public money on preventing ticket prices from rising. But both the cynic and the reasonable person in me think it's not better for everyone. Ticket prices are going to continue to rise regardless of ads. Frankly, I don't mind that as much as long as you still find ways to make it affordable for families to go to the movies. If the industry wanted to keep ticket prices down, they'd find some other way to do it. The other reason, I know this is a bad thing for everyone is that these ads are just awful. They don't even have the basic sensibilities that trailers do. If you're showing an action movie, then you show ads for other action movies. But these ads are the most generic, and poor-attempt-at-being-widely-appealing brand advertisements you can get. And speaking from my experience working with all the possibilities of targeted and contextual advertising, I find nothing more detestible than brand advertising. While it is not something that thi blog aims to address, I feel strongly that it is one of the biggest wastes of people's time and money that our society has ever allowed itself to generate.

Just to leave on a positive note, I'm including my favorite part of the article (which I highly recommend for it's much more balanced and interesting analysis of the situation)

The Portland, Ore., graphic designer started the Captive Motion Picture Audience of America - which is basically a Web site (www.captiveaudience.org) and a rallying cry. It also offers placards to print out that read: "RESERVED. This Patron is Avoiding Cinema Advertising and Will Return When the Feature Begins."

One Step Forward? Or Two Steps Back?

2005-05-07T23:00:00.000-07:00

Loews tells the truth
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Loews Cineplex Entertainment says it will begin publicizing true starting times of movies (when the movie really starts, not the time that the trailers and the commercials start) next month — sort of.
John McCauley, the company's senior vice president for marketing, said the times in the company's newspaper and Web listings would still be the times when the trailers and commercials start. But the ads will also carry a note advising that, as McCauley put, "the feature presentation starts 10 to 15 minutes after the posted show time."

Talk about your deceiving headlines. I was totally excited about this ...until I read the article (most of which is reproduced above). Bascially they're doing nothing. It actually feels rather insulting. They're telling people something that people not only already know, but have known since before preshow ads even became a problem. The movie doesn't start for an estimated 10 to 15 minutes after the posted start time. Wow. Thanks for being so forthcoming.

But the thing that really sucks about this is that this poor excuse for a response may be the ony response we et. Now that they've done something, they may not feel like they have to do anyting else, despite the fact that they've completely ignored the real problem. Pre show _commercials_ (light dimming, volume craning,live action commercials), STEAL your time. They're not like tralers that people actualy want to show up early to watch. When the ads start showing, not only do people detest them, but they can't do the things they normally do in the theater. Like reading the paper or talking to friends. These ads take away you ability to do anything else. And you can't show up late if you want a good seat. But how's this for irony:

"While some may welcome the change one company official says he thinks few will show up later. He says he believes "people enjoy coming early, getting their popcorn, finding their seats" and talking to one another."

Yes, we do. And that's what makes this so very, very weak

Letting Go

2005-05-06T15:52:00.000-07:00

Cla-Zel ending long run as movie theater
go to original article ... or email me for article text

""People say [a theater with such films] makes them feel warm and fuzzy - and say, 'I just don't have time to take in a movie.' Warm-and-fuzziness does not correlate to dollars, unfortunately," Mr. Yon said."

When I first read this, I wasn't exactly sure how I wanted to comment on it. I was drawn to how heartbreaking it was.

But I had another thought that made it powerful for a reason I wasn't expecting at all.

There are so many companies and organizations that are constantly trying very hard to make themselves relevant to people. Actually, they're just trying to survive. It's a human instinct carried over to business. But it has no place there. Business endeavors are successful because they are a reaction to what people already need. A service springs up because no one is providing it. A competitor springs up because some people want something a little different. All that is a win for everyone.

People start to lose when companies start competing for no other reason than an unrelending desire to win, make a lot of money, or to keep the comapany going.

If people don't need it, or don't want it, then there's no reason for that organization to exist. Period. I know there's a lot of grey area about what people want, what they think they want, what they think they need, but I don't think enough of the top brass of aging, irrelevant companies stop to think about this.

And what Mr. Yon says, sort of represents this to me. I realize I'm romanticizing it a bit, and his tone is a more discouraged and cynical than contemplative and refreshing, but I think in the end, it's precisely that.

For the record, if I own a theater, it isn't important to me that it have a legacy beyond my managership. Who would want to go if I wasn't there, anyway? :)

The Competition

2005-04-30T22:56:00.000-07:00

Home Theater of the Absurd?
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"There was a time, children, when you watched movies at home by unspooling VHS tapes in a VCR. You listened to the dialogue and music on the two little speakers built into the television. Yes, the TV, which was, if you were lucky, all of 27 inches big.
These days . . . well, chances are the last time you saw a 27-inch TV screen it most likely was mounted in the back seat of an SUV. In the last few years home entertainment has taken on new dimensions, all of them immense."

Admittedly, I'm at a place in my life right now where hearing the word "competition" makes me a little squeamish. Too many documentaries about the degeneration of free markets. Whatever it is, I can't stop thinking about how framing the wrong kinds of situations as competitions causes all kinds of problems.

But it's the first thing that came to mind.

It's not possible to have a conversation about the future of movie theaters without considering the increasingly popular phenomenon of home theaters. At least, I know that I need to address it. I feel like at least 10% of the articles I come across while doing my regular research are about home theaters. (Although 20% of the articles are about elderly or teen-aged people committing acts of violence against each other and I haven't written a post about that).

Home theaters are an interesting business to consider alongside traditional film exhibition. The rapid advancements in high fidelity film reproduction that modern home theaters have been able to make allows them to challenge the role of movie theaters in peoples' lives. Home Theaters look and sound f'in amazing! And the obvious question goes something like, "if a movie looks better in the comfort of your own home than it does at the multiplex down the street, why do we need movie theaters"

But the reality is, people who ask those questions are getting ahead of themselves. Even the fact that with enough money and time you can create a viewing experience that beats going to the movies doesn't mean home theaters are a threat to the exhibitors.

1.) Most people don't have that kind of money
2.) Most people don't have that kind of time
3.) It's just not worth it for most people to put in the time and money for the number of movies they watch. (Even if they watch a lot of movies)

Right now the average person is still going to turn to their local multipliex for the highest fidelity movie experience. But there are some other reasons that movie theaters and home theaters will continue a peaceful coexistence. Many of these are examined in an article cited in a previous post.

So what, then? Does the fact that people (like the journalists) see home theaters spelling the demise of traditional theaters say something about the identity that movie theaters have assumed? About their role as the average person understands it? Or are people just getting swept up by the romantic notions of phat tvs and stereos all for themselves.

To me, this signals that movie theaters (as an industry) should take a break from figuring out new things to do with their spaces (showing ads, streaming concerts, converting them to digital) and assess exactly what their collective identity is.

And then they should push it.

For home theaters not to be a threat to movie theaters, movie theaters can't only be about delivering the best sounding effects and best looking pictures. That has always been an integral part of what they do, and previously, no one could touch that, but now it's time to remind people of the rest of the good stuff that is wrapped up in going to the movies.

But piecing together an identity out of such a multifaceted activity that means so many things to so many different people is as complex as it sounds. I would say the role of the theater has evolved into the following

-A place where one can see movies the way they were meant to be seen. This means a baseline quality of picture, and sound that is current with today's standards. Not necessarily better or the best, but definitely big, definitely immersive and at minimum able to deliver the film maker's' visions
-A place where people can come to watch first run films. Where every showing is effectively a premiere, showing the world something for the first time.
-A collective social experience. Where people's experience can be amplified or counteracted by the fact that there is a room full of human beings experiencing the film as well. The theater should do everything in it's power to optimize this.
-A space where people who understand the world and express things in terms of cinema can come together do all the things that a group of people who share a common interest like to do. Find out about new films, talk to people about current films, learn about related events that are interesting to film-lovers. Like a local bookstore for movies.
-A partner with the surrounding businesses. A multiplex can be the hub of a bunch of great commerce. It can also provide the space for the purveyors of goods and services that compliment film watching (food service, movie rental, etc).

Some of these are things that Brad Bird touched on in his address to the San Francisco International Film Festival, which just goes to show how great minds think alike :)

The things that comprise its identity should be the reason a theater stays in business. The increased quality of home theaters doesn't compromise any of them, so it follows that movie theaters have little to worry about. It's worth noting, however, that most concession driven theaters don't operate the way I think they should...

But getting back to the home theaters themselves. Isn't it possible that movie theaters could benefit from the increased popularity of home theaters? Firstly, their platform is the same. Both home theaters and multiplexes share the common goal of bringing people and movies together in an optimal fashion. One group need not eat up the other's sales. What will happen is that their combined efforts will raise the overall interest in films, and should increase the performance of both businesses. Furthermore, increased popularity of their "home theater" components makes high fidelity sound and pictures cheaper. Movie theaters aren't excluded from being able to use this technology. Maybe a new model of venue could use lower cost equipment that is optimal in a smaller environment for smaller venues or higher quantity of screens. Lastly, consumer home theater products need a showcase to demonstrate their full range of capabilities. What better showcase than the movies and experiences that people will want to bring home with them? Wouldn't it just make entirely too much sense for a theater to partner with a bunch of home theater equipment providers to showcase their systems and allow people to try them out in their exact use case scenario. Doesn't that make more sense than those showrooms at best buy? As long as there's some way to control the partnerships such that they avoid being unwarranted product placement or too in your face, I think this is something everyone would want to see.

Long live the movie theater!

Q&A: Theater Vital Statistics

2005-04-30T22:10:00.000-07:00

Lisa asks:

I'm in the process of trying to pull together a business plan for a tri-plex in Oregon. I found your posts pretty enlightening, and was wondering if you happened to know of any source for finding out "vital statistics" of an existing theater -- how many it seats, what kind of projection equipment it has, etc. Thanks! --Lisa

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the note. i love hearing from kindred spirits and hope you keep reading the blog.

The most comprehensive source (that I've personally read) is the Moxie blog I link to on the sidebar (http://blog.moxiecinema.com/). I can't stress enough what and amazing job Dan Chilton does of chronicling the entire process he's going through to bring his theater to life. He has plenty of vital statistics in the many posts on the blog, but if you want a shortcut to specifics, I'm sure you could just email him and ask. He's also posted a comrehensive budget of purchases he's making which reads like a how-to.

I'd actually really like to see the balace sheets and any other numbers associated with big multiplexes myself, since my leanings are to be numerically analytical, but I don't currently know where to find this stuff myself. If you happen to find a good resource, please let me know :)

There are a few other resources that I've always wanted to chek out as well. One is the nato publication "The Encyclopedia of Exhbition" This is available on their website (www.natoonline.org) for a C note, which is a little too much for me to cough up before I've even seen the book. I attended the nato (national association of theater owners) convention, SHOWest, last year and disappointingly, they didn't have on there. I think this should have some great zeitgeist type views of the industry if not specifics for individual theaters or chains.

There is also the website www.bigscreenbiz.com which they rave about on the moxieblog. I think there are some very accessible forums to query and converse in.

Those are all my ideas. I'd love to hear what you find out!

I just THINK in Movie Theaters

2005-04-29T10:42:00.000-07:00

SFIFF: Brad Bird's State of Cinema Address
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Studios need to 'fire the MBAs and bring in people who know film.'"

As Martha put it when she read this, "That's me!" Or actually, she said "That's you" referring to me and my desire to be in the thick of the business of exhibition (and my lack of an MBA). This is one of the many, many fantastic quotes that came out of Brad Bird's address, "The State of Cinema" at the San Francisco Film festival. I had Martha look around for a transcript, but she was unable to find one, so instead, I'd point you over to the SFist which was my source for hearing about his talk. I highly, highly, highly recommend you follow the link and read it as the talk sounds like it made some great observations about the state of movies.

And consequently echoed a lot of the things that this blog is about :)

When I first read it I wanted to stop every 5 seconds to compose something about each comment for my blog. But that would amount to writing the exact same article the SFist produced, so I'll refrain. I'd like to reprint the whole article here, but it's the SFist's content, so I can't steal credit for it. Hopefully it'll stay up for as long as anyone wants to read it.

Aside from agreeing heartily with everything the man behind "The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles" had to say about the movies, I was particularly touched by the part that the SF included at the end of their post.

"It reminded us of a time, several years ago, when we were teaching media literacy at a summer camp and asked a particularly energetic and ambitious high-school student why he wanted to be a filmmaker. “I just, you know, THINK in movies,” he said, and it was sort of cute and naïve and idealistic, but it’s also exactly the same brand of passion exuded by successful, creative luminaries like Brad."

Now that I've read that, I'm stealing it because it definitely captures what I always want to tell people when they ask me why I want to own a movie theater. I just, you know, THINK in movie theaters. And if I'm anything, it's cute, naive and idealistic. :)

NATO's Big Book

2005-04-28T14:14:00.000-07:00

You might have noticed a couple of posts ago while I was making excuses for not keeping up with my blogging that I mentioned it was my birthay. One of the pleasant byproducts of having a birthday is the presents. And my brother (thanks Rito!) got me a great one!

For the year and a half that I've known of the existence of the National Association of Theater Owners, I've wanted to get my hands on a copy of their publication, The Encyclopedia of Exhibition. I'd been putting it off because of the $100 price tag. Also I don't like to buy books before I've seen them (especially ones that cost C-notes) for fear that I'll never actually read or look at them. So my strategy had been to do the same thing that I do with all moderately priced-to-expensive items that I really wanted. I put it on my wishlist.

(I know that it's rather strange that I feel guilty about buying things like Kobe jerseys, Cake CDs, Basketball shoes, and expensive books for myself but not about asking my friends and loved ones for them. It's a flaw that I hope to someday get over. In the meantime, my excuse is that if I bought them for myself, people would never have anything to get me for Christmas or my birthday)

Between sorting through shipments of DVDs via peerflix I eagerly waited for my book to arrive, and Tuesday, after a long day of work and San Francisco Film Festival going it finally arrived. Unfortunately, I only had the time between when I landed on the bed until when I passed out to flip through it, but it was enough time for me to get a sense of how useful it will be as a resource.

And the outlook is great! At first I was discouraged by the fact that it's essentially a spiralbound set of photocopies on glossy paper (the glossy pages are used for the high rez advertising throughout) and the huge section of the book devoted to marketing films that are about to come out.

But there are a bunch of cool things in there such as the listing of all the registered exhibitors, their contact information, and their presence in the united states. (I wasn't able to find any exhibitors headquartered in Hawaii, but I was able to find the chains that have screens there.) They also have some supplemental stuff such as the document that lays out the criteria for the film rating system.

But my favorite part is the statistics section. It isn't the vast ocean of rich moviegoing data that only the limits of my imagination could touch, but it does have a nice base of numbers to look at. Basic gender and age demographics as well as screen count in various regions over the last 10 years were all in there. There were even some telling figures about how a film's advertising budget was spent.

So one of my major projects is to make this data as useful and accessible as possible. I want to put up as much of this on the internet as I am allowed to (I don't want to steal any of the little revenue that must go towards funding the operation of NATO). There are a few graphs included, but I don't think they really capture the story the way a rich visualization would. I want to try to do what John Hollinger does for the NBA for the exhibition industry. I've never encountered data as compelling and insightful as it is in Hollingers work. And maybe it has just a little to do with the fact that I like basketball :)

But like I've said before, data is my fascination and I want to promote an understanding of it that is compelling, insightful and most importantly, does not have a manipulative agenda. Data has the capacity to tell enchanting stories about seemingly mundane and ordinary phenomena. But executives and pitchmen routinely abuse numbers like they're phony experts on the stand for celebrity justice.

But I digress. The important part is, the book's here, and until this information is available to everyone via the internet, I'm more than happy to offer its services to anyone who's curious. So if the description for it contains anything you think might be interesting, you can come to me to find out!

Q&A: The Concessions Parade

2005-04-28T13:39:00.000-07:00

Thanks to inspired web searchers and Martha's AdWords campaign, I've started getting some questions on the comments section of the blog posts. I have a bit of a problem deciding how to answer these. Since generally they do not come with email addresses, I have the option of answering these in the comments or as new posts to the blog.

Since these are generally questions that address topics that are relevant to the blog and I try to be as thoughtful about responding to them as I do about creating new posts, I've decided they belong as posts in the blog. I answered one in the comments section the other day, but I'll repost the reply later in case the inquirer missed it.

So onto the most recent question about Concessions. Eric who is on his way to delivering cinema to the Denver market asked if there was an optimal placement of the concessions stand. More specifically, he asked if per-moviegoer sales would improve if concessions were sold before or after the moviegoers' tickets were taken.

This being a question that I really hadn't though to research before, I tried to think of any sources where this research would be available. Given the corporate nature of the exhibition industry today, somebody must have looked into this somehere. But after mulling over it for a while I realized that the underlying issue isn't about the placement of the concession stand.

So Eric, to answer your question, from my perspective I don't think it's even an issue. While I certainly think all the details of your theater should be deliberate, and the per-caps will definitely be affected by where you place the concession stand, I don't believe thinking about this will help you acheive what you want. In the end, it doesn't come down to what concession positioning has proven to make the most money or pleased the most people in other theaters. It comes down to what specific theater experience you want to provide. You're in total control of how you want to get your patrons from point A to point B, from people choosing to spend their evening at your theater to them finishing that evening having had the awesomest time of their lives. Somewhere along the line they'll probably want to get some popcorn. But let your vision of the theater, and the terms of your patrons decide that. The market research might help inform your decision, but visualizing it for a couple of minutes and leveraging your knowledge of the theater and market would get you to the same answer (if not a more optimal one).

*Martha sometimes tells me that it's frustrating to talk to me about stuff because I'll often disregard the questions that people ask me by reframing them or saying that the real question is something different. For fear that this may be the case with some of my responses (such as this one), I want to say that my intent isn't to stifle ideas or discredit the questions that people are grappling with. I just try to explain things the way I see them. And if it seems twisted, like I tell her, I can't help it if I'm so right :)

Back In the Saddle

2005-04-28T13:31:00.000-07:00

To anyone reading, I want to dedicate this post to apologizing from staying away from posting for the last couple of weeks. My absence might not have affected your daily life much, but I want to say this anyway, because it means a lot to me that people consider my thoughts and share my interests. Lately I've been receiving a lot of great feedback about my posts and I wanted to express how excited I have been about it.

A number of things have gotten in the way of me posting recently (my birthday and the related festivities, going to San Francisco Film Festival movies all day and night, unprecedented productivity at work, etc) but the feedback, backlog of thoughts and articles to read have all become too much and I'm bursting with material!

So now onto the onslaught of posts. Keep the feedback coming. And my sincerest thanks for reading :)

Dont be THAT Theater

2005-04-12T23:10:00.000-07:00

At a Movie Theater Not So Far, Far Away
'Stars Wars' fans camp at Grauman's Chinese six weeks before 'Episode III' is set to premiere somewhere else.
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The movie they are salivating to see, "Star Wars: Episode III, Revenge of the Sith," sixth in the "Star Wars" series to be released, is set to open several blocks away at ArcLight Cinemas on Sunset Boulevard.

But it's all a misunderstanding, say the "Star Wars" campers, one of whom came from Ohio and another from Australia. The two dozen fans at the site at midday Thursday said they just wanted the premiere switched to Grauman's. After all, they said, the first movie to be made in the series, 1977's "Star Wars," premiered there.

Moreover, they don't like ArcLight's assigned seating and prefer Grauman's THX-certified sound system to the Dolby at the other theater."

Now let's be honest. Not opening Episode 3 at the Chinese Theater in downtown LA? The Arclight sound can't hang with bajillion year old Grauman's? What's the world coming to. Not too long ago, I had a little crush on te arclight and all it's fanciness. Around the same time, I think I thought of the Chinese Theater as a cheesy tourist attraction and nothing more. And thnen I saw a movie there. And was blown away by the experience. Mann's Chinese is everything that's right about movie watching - amazingly high fidelity experience, deep auditorium, big crowd, and a whole lot of history. The arclight, I later realized, is everything that's wrong with going to the movies -- Inflated prices, gimmicky extras, gaudy LA real estate, and no regard for the grand traditions of moviegoing (like going early to wait in line and fighting for non-assigned seats).

And now they're locking the fan's out of the place where they actually want to subject themselves to Lucas's latest atrocity. No respect these days, I tell ya.

Measurements and Such

2005-04-11T16:45:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I've discovered I have a real interest in is the statistical analysis of real life phenomena. In all likelihood, this has lots more to do with the following fantasy basketball than anything else, but I've also found a very comfortable place for it in my real life job. Which involves a lot of data analysis. Naturally.

So here's the thing. I wanted to make it one of goals to develop a relatively sophisticated understanding of the numbers and statistics associated with the activity of moviegoing. I'm hoping that by applying my totally untrained and uninformed number crunching faculties and creating some extremely useful and meaninful models, that I'll have access to insights about operating a movie theater that most people will not have.

And I feel like I'm pretty close to a breakthrough on this. But there are a couple of things holding me back. I figure the first thing I need is some unifying philosophy about the numbers that I can use to focus my thinking. These would hopefully be very similar to those that people hold about life, i.e. sharing is nice, destroying is easy, things that are hard are good, stuff like that. I, of course, haven't come up with this unifying philosophy yet. It's possible that my lack of formal schooling in this arena is the bottleneck. I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that I'm just not that smart.

But that's not the only thing. I have this genuine fascination with the idea of being data driven, but then when I turn around and see things that I perceive to be data driven, too often my reaction is irritated. I see people explaining things in terms of the numbers and variables and totally ignoring the fact that these situations have complexities that don't relate to numbers. This is all getting very abstract, so let me provide an example.

The other night, my friends (who are still writing papers in college) were trying to explain some economic technique or concept about driving the economy through employment to me and something about it sounded wrong. My first attempt to try to justify the alarm went off was laughed off as me trying to use words that were bigger than I actually understood. That part was true, but so was my argument.

My protest was that jobs were a unit of "good" in this equation. And sociologically that doesn't make sense to me. Lots of people hate their jobs, and I've heard more than one person describe their work as soul sucking. But that doesn't stop them from being grateful for them. And it's all because the academics who saw the data said jobs were a good thing (ok that's not the only reason, but it's part of it). I'm sure when the thoughts were first had, the originator surveyed the state of things and saw jobs were everywhere that good stuff was happening so made the natural connection. The natural wrong connection. One thing about measuring data is that if you don't look deep enough, you can mistake symptoms for sources. Which is why the same understanding of data when analyzing the past isn't always applicable to projecting or trying to drive the future.

So in the meantime, I'm working on my ideas about how to understand the numbers, and will be adding some incomplete but hopefully partially insightful notions on how this applies to the movie theater business. And for anyone who was a real academic in college (or just everyday life) and knows more about this stuff than I do, please don't hesitiate to help me along. :)

Bully of the Century?

2005-04-05T22:24:00.000-07:00

Theater operator cries 'foul'
State says it has the included complaint with ongoing probe
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"'Century Theatres has shut us out of 100 percent of the major studio releases since we opened our doors," said Mason, who opened Cinemas Palme D'Or with three business partners in October 2003. "But they haven't stopped there.'

Mason contends Century, which has theaters throughout California and 11 other states, has been using its "circuit power" to steal arthouse, foreign and documentary titles since it began showing some independent films last fall in Rancho Mirage."

Century Theaters has been one of my favorite theater chains for a few years now. Ever since I started researching them, I've always appreciated their local roots, their diverse film offering, their commitment to bringing films to underserved markets, and their deliberate way of doing business.

This compaint seems to be an unfortunate side effect of that last point. Century makes careful deals with distributors in order to assure a favorable position with them. It's a tough arena and asking for exclusivity seems like a solid way to prevent yourself from getting screwed by the distributors. But when it ends up locking out neighboring theaters, then I would have to quetion the wisdom of keeping that clause around once it's started to cause (multiple) problems. And it brings me to my third movie theater belief.

3.) Be a part of a community

You'd never convince me that anyone was ever worse off by being a good neighbor. Which is no coincidence. Aside this being one of my firmest philosophical alignments, one _always_ directly benefits from a joint association whether we're talking about forging military alliances, helping friends, exchanging business, or splitting a meal. And theaters, in particular multiplexes, ar superbly positioned to be the anchor of fantastic communities of happiess and society (and consequently commerce). My favorite examples of this are the dining and shopping communities that sprung up in my hometown (or close enough) of McAllen, TX and in my college getaway location, Union City Plaza. Union city had, literally, one of every restaurant you could imagine.

Theaters naturally bring traffic and more importantly people who are either currently or about to engage in huge emotional exercises. In other words they're ripe for experiences and services that a number of businesses would be well suited to provide. So many theaters (Century included) are guilty of policies that don't allow outside food or beverages into a theater to try to force people to buy teir concessions (which they unfortunately live and die by). They should be encouraging people to keep their neighbor businesses in the black and swimming in green. Better business mean happier moviegoers. And rules like the above only breed resentment in loyal customers. And never keep outside food out.

But I digress. Theaters, like any business, really, need to reach out to not only the businesses that compliment them, but their competitors. Competitors not only make you better at what you can do, but their familiarity with your game can make them the most powerful allies you could have. Big and small theaters should have no problem working together to jointly foster a culture of moviegoing in their shared community. They should advertise for each other and for their specialties. I dare say that this would be a more productive use of resources than filing complants and mounting defenses.

Business as Digital

2005-04-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

Sony, Disney, Warner Said Set To Roll Out Era Of Digital Cinema
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"According to people in the industry, the agreement on the table would work this way: Each time theater owners play a digital movie, participating studios will make a payment toward a loan used to buy the digital projectors, somewhere between $500 and $1,000 per digital print. It's estimated Hollywood studios will save about $900 on the cost of reproduction, distribution and delivery of each digital movie, so in the short term the money they pitch in to repay the loan is about what they save by making the switch to digital. The savings would come long term."

This makes things sund relatively peachy for the distributors. Essentially no money is risked. I see a couple of problems right off the bat. The rollout strikes me as kind of timid and might result in a slow conversion. But the biggest issue is that the focus here is not taking additional risks and realizing few immediate benefits. For me it boils down to the same exhibitors getting the same films they would have always gotten.

In the article,the reporter claims theater owners have no interest in paying for the projectors since they will realize so few of the benefits. I'm guessing that these are the big players who show whatever they want anyway. The venues that usually get bullied around by bigger players should be the ones jumping at the chance to get a piece of the newley ubiquitously available content. Of course this is only if the studios can commit to rolling out digital movies. But I think the smaller exhibitors are getting marginalized here and I'd like to see them speak up louder about the benefits they can realize. Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Let's get some things straight

2005-03-25T12:35:00.000-08:00

Cinema owners worry about ticket prices, too
go to original article ... or email me for article text

Now that I'm totally (and quite loudly) behind the idea that my future and fortune will all be had in the multiplex arena, things have become much simpler in my understanding of life. It now makes sense why I love articles like the one above (which I recommend). It basically says all the things we already know about the movie business, it's hard, concessions are everything, the distributors take all the money, and they're impossible to work with, yada yada. The thing I like about stories like these is that it separates the decision makers from the decisions that they inevitably have to make. The theater owners are people that are sympathetic with their patrons and do what they can.

"I call it the lousy-in-the-lobby experience," says Joseph Chabot, of Moore Theatres, a small chain of 19 screens in four locales outside of Kalamazoo, Mich. "People who've just come from the local fast-food restaurant know what soda costs," he says, "and they don't like paying two or three times as much just to carry it into the theater with them." Mr. Chabot and his partner, owner and president Carol Moore, say they have taken these concerns seriously and come up with a solution - self-service concession stands.

"We let people get their own drinks and popcorn and they love it," he says. "It saves them money and still allows us to make a profit." Chabot says they've seen audience numbers increase since they instituted the new service."

Which is a.) awesome, b.) genius, c.) humanitarian, d.) awesome.

And while we're on the topic of awesome, I occasionally try to strategically plant my principle ideas about running a movie theater in my posts here. But since we're at a crossroads here, taking what may be a highly criticized path to multiplexes over the little guys, I think it might help my position to lay out the things I stand for, and what I mean when I say I want to swim in screens. And let's start right out with the big 2:

1.) Cheap (if not free concessions)
2.) Deals with Distributors that make sense

There's nothing that bothers me more about this industry than the fact that it's widely acknowledged that one does not profit from actually _showing movies_. It's all so backwards. At one point when it was hard to get films places and distributors had real problems getting films on screens, the 90% of profits thing made a lot of sense. And since people were spilling out the doors, it just happened that you could survive with selling food on the side. But concessions are a _workaround_. As in absolutely not the primary business of a movie theater. How can one ever provide a satisfactory service to people when the primary business they are running is catering to a totally different service? How can a workaround be adopted as an industry wide standard and have everyone be ok with it?

I mean I understand why, but seriously, it can only lead to bad things. On so many levels. I have a number of philosophical problems with this whole approach, and the main one is that it doesn't address the problem at it's source. People can't afford to run movie theaters because the distribution deals are prohibitive. On top of that the studios use their infinite negotiation power to keep it that way in spite of its senselessness. Which just plain sucks.

But isn't that the point of having an association of theater owners? Why hasn't NATO used the unionized force to fight for this? And with studios so stupidly obsessing about piracy that doesn't even affect their sales, why don't the theater owners use this as leverage. Right now, the distributors want to roll out lame cash rewards for staff that identify camcorders in the audience. Why doesn't NATO negotiate a more reasonable distribution profit sharing deal for people who can ensure piracy won't occur. Ironically, this is probably because the studios would take a bigger hit from this than they ever would from Piracy, but at least they'd take care of their biggest public facing issue.

I could go on and on. I'm already pretty raving mad just thinking about it. :) But for the record, my idea of multiplex first and foremost includes both of these ideas for the public that utilizes them (which should pan out in either lower ticket prices or a more worthwhile experience). But the fat needs to get cut out. Across the entire industry.

Multiplexity

2005-03-22T22:00:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend I had a rather sobering realization.

Owning a single screen movie theater may not be what I really want to do. The problem is that all of my experience, and all of the problems I want to take a chance to swing at all involve watching movies at 10 or 20 screen venues. Well, at least 6. Or more than 2. Or 1. Anyway, I looooove watching movies at multiplexes. Maybe that's not even it. Maybe all the movies I ever saw (limited run, indie films included) were all at multiplexes. When I walk in and out of big theaters, I just get this feeling of completion, of wholeness. I know it sounds ridiculous to be so reliant on huge allegedley soulless social spaces, but I don't find them so. I mean the Sony Metreon is my favorite theater!

I went to the Castro last week to watch Brazil, and it finally dawned on me that I'm just not used to watching movies in single screen houses. Since I decided that my life goal was to own a theater, I've been convinced that any theater would do and something in the one or two screen range would be the most feasible. And so my project to visit all the movie theaters in the city has taken me to lots of classic single screen landmarks. And I'm always in awe of them. I love how they're conveniently placed in downtown areas and how they're so ornate and generally huge. But I've been confusing that awe for my love of movie theaters, which, in all honesty has nothing to do with these places.

What I want is to run a multiplex. And fix all the things wrong with multiplexes. I guess saying that I want to "own a movie theater" has been the problem. I've thought myself into thinking I wanted something not quite what I do want. If that makes any sense.

Martha likes to point out that I've had this crisis (out loud) several times before. Probably idle musing. Now it's for real. Small, old time movie theaters aren't for me. I want to be in charge of a multiplex. I thought I wanted to own one so I could make all the decisions myself, and I thought I wanted a small place so I could own it. But basically then I wouldn't be able to make the decisions I want. It'd be pointless. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.

And for those of you cynics who think multiplexes are nothing but places to show non-stop hollywood crap, I have two things to say.
1.) I've been to state of the art multiplexes dedicated to showing independent films
2.) I'm so into hollywood crap

I was raised by seeing every movie that came to town. And while I'm discerning in my own way, I'd like to show 'Like Mike' as much as 'The Station Agent' and as much as 'Babe'. Movies to me are all about variety. And nothing can represent that variety as well as a multiplex.

I'm just saying.

This presents a couple of problems (and perhaps presents a few nice options) One problem is that my big plan was to run an outdoor tropical movie theater where I could build it up from the ground by hand. Try as I might, I've never been able to figure out a way to make an outdoor movie theater work in the multiplex setting. Not that I could ever afford a multiplex to own myself anyway. But perhaps my interest in the outdoor theater is like my interest in the movie palaces around town (although I like watching movies outdoors way more than I do in the movie palaces). Which means that I would be on the wrong end of the deal again. Maybe all I need to do is get into a position with the local multiplex. Which is nice because it doesn't require as much start up capital (less urgency for saving) and probably much much more feasible (which in a weird way -- I think makes more sense)

Martha says I'm selling out, to which I just shrug (lovingly). As much as I would love to be a business owner, there's just no need. There are plenty of theaters. They're just broken. I wouldn't be helping anything by lighting up more screens. This has always been what I want to do. I've just been very quick to forget it in order to make it seem more attainable...

Martha is the Queen of the Internet

2005-03-18T17:16:00.000-08:00

As employees of the world's most valiant effort to organize information it seems a rather natural decision to finally start putting the tools we support (AdSense and AdWords) to some good use. I'm too lazy to do so, but Martha has never been one to shy away from tinkering with ads, and the results have been fabulous.

In spite of my protests, she added AdSense to the blog and we've already gotten some fantastic leads! Check out the following sites on outdoor movie theater systems.

www.summercinema.com
www.senllc.com

Awesome? Awesome.

But on the flip side of the coin, she also started an AdWords campaign to start directing traffic for those people interested in starting movie theaters (like minded folks) to my blog! In fact if you're reading this, it's possibly how you got here (unless you got here through the other ad she put up for my name). I've already gotten a few emails from people. And I tell them exactly what this blog tells them which is to get their tails over to the Moxie. Until I'm as deep in the trenches as the Moxie folks, I'm gonna act as the supreme traffic director of the world and hopefully make some friends along the way. Be my friend!

Digital Distribution ... German Style

2005-03-14T13:06:00.000-08:00

T-Systems Launches one-of-a-kind, end to end Digital Cinema Distribution System
go to original article ... or email me for article text

Does anybody talk about anything other than Digital Cinema these day? These stories keep rolling in, and I'm inclined to get excited. Jumping on the bandwagon if you will. Although if you consider that I built the bandwagon and have been riding it for a long time, I'm an old timey jumper.

"The T-Systems solution, which connects U.S. studios with European theatres and filmmakers shooting in Europe with U.S. producers, includes a secure Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network linking Los Angeles and Germany, the German- based play-out center called Digital Cinema Factory and the in-theatre server. It also incorporates the Texas Instruments CineLink™ security management and the CineCanvas™ image management systems. The in-theatre server is compatible with all 2K DLP™ projectors currently on the market. Rounding out the system is the ASTRA European satellite service.

Executives will demonstrate the T-Systems solution. They will explain the T-Systems products and process, as well as reveal how their "Net Key" card anti-piracy solution, which is server, theatre, screen and time and date specific, solves content owner security concerns. "

Of particular relevance is the info regarding the security. It puts into perspective what sorts of controls the distributors will be able to place on films. These are things to consider when negotiating contracts. Additionally it looks like there will be a strong way to link a pirated film to it's source theater and a way to incentivize theater owners to crack down on pirates. I.E. Stop the camcorders or you won't get the movies.

Digital Installation? Pocket Change!

2005-03-14T12:56:00.000-08:00

Digital Film Creates New Buzz at ShoWest
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Everyone agrees, however, the cost of installing systems is decreasing. At a deployment of 1,000 systems, the expense is now put at $75,000 to $85,000 per movie screen, said several sources. That is down from well over $100,000 last year."

This keeps getting better. 75K is almost something I can save up my own cash for. I wonder if there's room for it in the moxie budget. The report out of Showest is really exciting (I recommend you check this article out).

"Hollywood's studios are pushing digital cinema because it can shave millions of dollars off their distribution costs.

Theater owners are being told the computer networks that store and play movies from digital files can boost revenues by quickly reprograming screens to hits from flops, showing music concerts via satellite, displaying advertising and ushering in a new wave of three-dimensional movies."

Nice to see I'm on the same page as these guys.

"Doug Darrow, business manager for Texas Instruments' DLP Cinema group, said such a roll-out could begin by 2005's end, but Fithian said 2006 or 2007 is a more likely time frame."

Which sounds a lot like the caution displayed by the DCI guy in an earlier post here. Caution is good, but I think an eager market (on both the production and consumption side) will push this along as fast as it can go.

Ahh Paris

2005-03-14T10:13:00.000-08:00

Cinema City: Paris the best place in the world to watch film
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Neither addicted to film nor blind to this city’s inexhaustible charms, I go to the movies in Paris in all weathers and all seasons because it is, by a wide margin, the best place in the world to watch film. Los Angeles, London, even New York pale when it comes to the sheer number and variety of choices — about 300 titles, three times the best top U.S. cities can manage, and many of them in English. Paris’ riches include a peerless selection of American films from Hollywood’s golden age, playing every week of the year. After all, this was the first city to show films publicly (a plaque at 14 Boulevard des Capucines celebrates that Dec. 28, 1895, event), and it is loath to give up its pre-eminence."

What makes this so astoundingly relevant is that Martha and I just got back from Paris and saw no fewer than two films there! And in our limited experience being parisians, I have to say I agree with Mr. Turan's assessment of the film culture. The theater I loved the most "Studio Galande" (which should be covered soon in movies and sweets) played a different movie for every timeslot over 3 or four days. I've never seen another venue be able to do this and wondered if it was some sort of french anomaly. We ran into several theaters like these and having the film culture explained makes everything make more sense. I liked their MO. One screen, one person on staff, no concessions and movies played back to back to back to back (the next one literally starting before the last one finished rolling credits) And each film still had about 10 - 20 people in it (on weekdays in the middle of the day).

I want to run my theater like that. Maximum film variety with minimum to work with. I have a feeling I can make it work, even in Hawaii. Although I think it'll take an assist from Digital Cinema going the way I expect it to.

Where's my Digital Cinema?

2005-03-14T09:39:00.000-08:00

The Big Picture: A Digital Cinema Initiative Update
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"But what happens to common business practices? Today theatres often violate the strict letter of their rights agreements by, for example, switching prints from a larger venue to a smaller one. Everybody knows what’s happening and looks the other way, says Ordway, because “everybody makes money.” Theoretically, that’s not possible in the digital world. If the encryption technology is too tight, significant business changes will be required. If it’s too loose there won’t be the flexibility in the system the people are accustomed to today."

Huh? Obviously there will need to be some changes in the way contracts are spelled out, but either the reporter didn't understand what was going on or I don't. Increased security means _more_ flexibility? In that case, I'm all for increased security (I am, for real, not facetiously).

"Ordway believes that a retrofit of the digital systems currently in place around the world is impossible. “I’m ninety-nine percent certain it can’t be done,” he says, “no matter what anyone says.” If nothing else, the servers that drive them don’t have the secure decryption specifications spelled out by the DCI. People don’t retrofit projectors, he says, adding “All the electronic stuff [that supports them] gets replaced.”

"Since you said, “widely implemented”, I would guess that it might be at least 4 to 6 more years. That is different from when the initial rollout might take place, which I would guess would take place in the next year or so."

To me, all this points to being cautious about when one chooses to take on their digital technology switch. Obviously, the guy in charge of defining the standard will be on the cautious side, but he is probably the most knowledgeable. In order to not buy something obselete or at too much of a first mover premium, I think 2 years might be a good time to get a jump on the technology, maybe even a year.

Although I think that being the first place to offer true digital screenings in your area might be a huge advantage (ESPECIALLY if you cut the deal properly). You'd have the people who come for the wow and to see what it's all about. And the DCI standard should deliver. But you should also get preferential treatment from the studios trying to show off their new wares and have the flexibility(?) to show more movies since they get their faster with less pain.

All this is in my imagination, of course. The key being the contracts about which Ordway had this to say:

"Third, in the business world of film distribution and exhibition, there are contractual agreements. In the digital world, many aspects of the contractual agreements would be incorporated into the “digital rights management” (DRM) issues in the Digital Cinema security system. The issue of DRM has opened the door to the need for new agreements. The Digital Cinema systems to be delivered will have to accommodate any new distribution/exhibition agreements that pertain to DRM. In the meantime, companies developing systems have to assume that what they are developing will have the DRM features that might be required by the various distribution/exhibition agreements. The timing for formal agreements between distribution and exhibition on DRM issues is not clear, but is underway."

One needs the lowdown on how these agreements are going to work out to see how they'll benefit. Anyone know how far along these are and where I can get my hands on something like this?

Other interesting bits from the article
-The final sticking points involve security on the films AFTER digital transfer (i.e. people camcording movies - they have solutions)
- The digital systems will have to be certified, but no one is sure by who
- The transition to digital sound yielded two important lessons. That there needs to be a single format and that it should not be proprietary (leaving the possibility for future growth) DCI accounts for both of these things.

Rentals Hurting ...because of shorter theatrical windows?

2005-03-14T09:29:00.000-08:00

Short Windows on Top Hits Assist Sales, Hurt Rentals
go to original article .. or email me for article text

"Shorter windows boost consumer awareness, goosing sales, which dampen rentals."

I'm not really convinced that theirs a linear connection betwen these three things. I think a decline in rentals has more to do with rising availability of DVDs to a public that has rapidly become more accepting of the medium. As the discs continue to get cheaper and the gap between price of rental and price of purchase shrinks, people are naturally going to stop renting new movies the way they used to.

"While rental demand for box office hits has fallen, rentailers haven’t reduced their buy rates for top-grossing theatrical releases. They know that after rental demand is satisfied, they have a flourishing aftermarket for these hits in previously viewed title (PVT) sales."

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. They've basically become retailers for used goods. The "rentailers" really need to reimagine their business. After having gotten extremely caught up in the DVD buying craze and owned far too many myself, I'm the first to say that rental places should definitely still have a place in our culture. But they have to take a look at what service they actually provide and give it a reasonable price and restructure their business to provide it efficiently. The netflix subscription model is a decent start, but I think there must be something else that would be even better.

$10 bucks ain't so bad!

2005-03-13T19:14:00.000-08:00

India, U.S. Moviegoers Pay Least -New Costs Index
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Moviegoers in India and the United States pay the least to see their favorite films, according to a new index that seeks to present a global picture of the comparative cost of entertainment.

Indians need to work just 16 minutes and Americans 24 to afford the price of a typical ticket to the movies in their respective countries compared with 35 minutes for Britons, 48 for Japanese and 123 for Bulgarians, who rank lowest on the Cinema Index from market researcher Screen Digest."

I always knew going to The Metreon was a bargain and a half! Seriously, this is pretty sweet. Although I have a sneaking suspicion that my particular San Francisco ticket price isn't what they're using as their average, it's nice to see that film entertainment is more available to Americans than to anyone else except India. Until they take all of our jobs. Can they outsource our theater staffing needs? I think I've been blogging long enough to earn a trip to the movies!

Bummer

2005-03-13T19:08:00.000-08:00

Connecticut Bill To Regulate Movie Listings Dies
go to original article ... or email me for article text

As seen earlier on this blog:

"West Hartford State Rep. Andrew Fleischmann was trying to get legislation to require movie theaters to list two start times.

One would say what time the ads and trailers start, the other would say the time the actual movie started.

The General Law committee has killed the bill."

But all is not lost. There may be a second coming.

"Fleischmann said that moviegoers are tired of being turned into captive audiences for endless ads. He plans to reintroduce the bill next year."

Apparently this congressman was _really_ pissed off about all this. Straight to the top. Truzy.

We might be seeing a lot more from IMAX...

2005-03-13T19:02:00.000-08:00

Imax Posts Stronger Quarter, Forecast; Stock Jumps
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The Mississauga, Ontario-based firm, which is run largely from New York, signed contracts for 36 theater systems in 2004, better than its forecast of 30 to 35 signings and its highest figure since 1999. It recognized revenue on 22 theater systems.
Imax said 22 of the contract signings were for its smaller MPX systems, which are designed to attract exhibitors that cannot accommodate its regular theaters, which have screens up to eight storeys high."

I wonder why people would feel the need to aggressively take on IMAX theaters. The content that they can accomodate just isn't up to par. But I guess more IMAXes being around might fix that. And of course the following...

"Imax has announced plans to release three Hollywood films converted to the Imax format: "Robots" on March 11, "Batman Begins" on June 17 and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on July 15."

I wonder if the digital projectors will be able to handle IMAX fidelity. That would help them out a lot.

The Presidential

2005-03-13T18:56:00.000-08:00

White House Letter: With Hollywood help, Bush keeps up on films
go to original article ...or email me for the article text

"The theater has been updated over the years, but its most extensive renovation came during the made-for-Hollywood presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Then the major studios of the time - Disney, Universal, Fox, Paramount, Columbia, MGM and Warner Brothers - put up $150,000 to make sure the president watched their wares in an environment as cosseted as the screening room of an entertainment mogul."

One has to wonder, if the print that the president is getting will be keeping me from getting the one I need to show. Perhaps calling the "El Presidente" will get me preferential treatment! (I was going to go with "The Presidential" for the purposes of this post, but I decided I liked the sound of "El Presidente" better because they used to call me that back in my frat boy days -- due to my position and heritage. We were so clever)

The Inherent Benefits of the Open Air Tent Combo

2005-03-11T12:08:00.000-08:00

I was just thinking, while driving to work this morning, is that there is a fantastic and elegant efficiency to running an outdoor theater by night and tenting the place up when it's bright outside. For those keeping score, the form factor I want to apply to the theater I hope to open in Hawaii will be outdoor/open air place where the tropical breeze will be a constant reminder that not only are you watchig a fantastic movie, but you're watching it _in HAWAII_. (ala Maui Film Festival )

The problem with this setup, of course, is similar to that of a drive in. You can only show movies during the darkened night time hours. One thing that clicked with me while reading the Moxie blog (much much more on this incomparable page soon) is that movies at night are much much more popular than the daytime shows anyway. The solution I was originally thinking of was putting the whole thing under a tent (and somehow making it possible for the wind to still blow through to remind you of where you were) . The beauty of this -- that I only now realize -- is that for all practical purposes, it'll be easier and far less hassle to put up a smaller tent than a bigger one. And a smaller tent means a smaller room to manage and easier to focus on providing comfort and optimized experience for the few people who do attend the early movies. And when nighttime rolls around and the showings start to get more popular, the tent comes down and spreading out becomes possible.

It's so tantalizingly efficient. I love it!

The tent sort of set up, in any event, allows for lots of flexibility with the early movie/earlier use of the venue. At Wailea for the Maui Film Festival, it's a golf course. For us we could put in tables so people could watch while eating pastries from Martha's cafe or diaper changing stations for the ever popular mommy series for theaters. I'm sold. And I'm sure there won't be any problems getting it to pass city ordinances or selling the setup to distributors

Dinner and a Movie Joints

2005-03-02T11:27:00.000-08:00

Dinner and a movie Cinema pubs offer meals, drinks and films
go to original article ... or email me for the article text

"Now, they're getting more popular, and many are showing newer films. As of 1997, just 14 first-run theaters in the country served alcohol.

Today, the figure is up to 270, said Kozak, whose organization counts among its members the owners of more than 29,000 of the roughly 36,000 to 37,000 screens in the nation."

An interesting point of comparison for all those thinking about opening up restaurant movie theater combos.

Even more interesting is this bit of distribution leverage.

"The earliest first-run cinema pubs tended to be outside major cities, in part because distributors wouldn't include theaters that served alcohol in initial film releases if they had competition. That's been changing, Kozak said. But in New England, most cinema pubs are located outside urban centers."

And while they say that this is changing, perhaps this could be an in for someone who wanted to say operate a theater on a pacific island :)

Could Home Theater (equipment) be the next generation of Commercial Theater (Equipment)?

2005-03-02T10:58:00.000-08:00

Entertainment fans build movie theaters in their homes
go to original article ... or email me for the article text

"'If you go to any commercial theater and then you go to a properly done, professionally installed home theater, the home theater will absolutely blow away the commercial theater,' Rivera said."

Since I started researching speakers and home theaters in high school, this is always something that my instinct said was true. And since I first thought of operating a theater, this is an idea that I wanted to incorporate. At the time it was about providing smaller home theater installations in the multiplex that would double as show rooms for home theater vendors. But now it might just be a more affordable way to bring the highest fi-est experience to moviegoers.

The two big things it highlights are:
- While home theaters are not cheap, they're cheaper than building a multiplex
- You always get more bang for your buck out of sound.

Combine this with being strategic about screen sizes that accomplish immersive experiences (see earlier post) and you have an inexpensive way to draw a crowd of audio/videophiles and add a careful selection of movies and you have a reason for the rest to come experience it.

No Loyalty in this Business

2005-03-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

Article: R/C Theatres to sell 7 movie houses to chain
go to original article : email request for article text

"'There's not a large amount of loyalty in the movie theater business,' Phillips said. 'The product is such a big part of it that the operator is not a concern.'"

A little blip on the newswire, but with a bit of scary perspective.

"Most moviegoers choose a theater based on the movies it is showing or the quality of the building, he said. Ticket prices are determined by the market and usually are standard for a location."

While this is certainly true, I don't believe that their's no loyalty in the business. Just a misunderstanding of how loyalty works. I imagine that loyalty will come to those who deserve it. Providing the things theatergoers want, will earn their loyalty. Movies are a business and relationship just like any other. Product and operator are not that separate. It's just harder for the patron to see through to the operator (see my earlier post on transparency)

Why We Go to the Movies

2005-03-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Theaters: Despite the advent of TV and other competing technologies, Americans have continued their love affair with the cinema.
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Why is it that we still go to the movies? Why do we bother now that we can sit at home in front of a huge television screen with booming sound coming out of speakers all around the room?"

It's a bit all over the page, but this article does a very nice job of answering the question posed above. Part history lesson, part insight into humananity this article covers the important facts that
- Movie Theaters will always have a place
- Hollywood will always progress when it's convinced that the advancements will be profitable and not surrender any of their old profitability (I especially liked this part about eating its young)
- Movies will always be relevant and a venue for human expression.

Emerging Pictures Digital Rollout

2005-03-02T10:27:00.000-08:00

With Investment from Participant, Emerging Pictures Announces 12 City Digital Cinema Rollout for '05
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Emerging Pictures, the digital cinema initiative being forged by Ira Deutchman, Giovanni Cozzi, and Barry Rebo has announced an investment from Participant Productions. As part of the partnership, Emerging will roll-out its Digital Cinema Network in 12 cities this year, offering an array of programming, including independent films and international films and other content, ranging from film festival programming, dramatic performances, and concerts."

http://www.emergingpictures.com/

This headline went from very exciting to deflating in the time it took me to get through the article. I was thinking that these guys were after what I was after. Leveraging the flexibility of digital cinema to strike meaningful deals with distributors and get the film product to more places in superior quality while giving the digital exhibition a little jumpstart.

But these guys appear to be small fries. They're going the ultra-conservative route with non-commercial venue installations and proprietary content deals. Not trying to go head to head with traditional theaters and distribution deals. My guess is that this effort will fade into the background and not do much for digital cinema at all. But who knows, maybe they have something bigger planned.

Their staff seems to be fairly accomplished, so either these guys aren't as smart as their resumes claim or they don't have their heart in the effort. They seem to be big enough guns to challenge the big players in the industry to reinvent their distribution and leverage their power for good, but they seem to be settling for building their own content network instead of going after the whole pie.

What they do is still cool Still providing free equipment and installations for people who _have_ venues in "underserved" areas. I hope they find some way of making them useful to the populace and commercially viable.

They have movies on the internet?!

2005-03-02T10:16:00.000-08:00

2 Websites Add Movie Ticket Sales
go to original article ... or email me for article text

I was initially going to comment on this aspect of the following article

"'There's no question it's got to be inhibited by the fact that you have to go to three places to be able to buy tickets for every theater in your neighborhood,' Card said."

which is actually a rather tired problem that neither partnership (Google's or Amazon's) seems to solve. The article, unfortunately, missed the point of Google's Movie offering which is not, primarily about partnering with an online ticketing venture, but about allowing people easy access to movies on the web. I have been interested in seeing Google do this for a while, but was never really sure how it work with so much rich information already on IMDB. The flexibility of the search and relationship to other web resources is going to be Google Movies' strength, and hopefully a healthy integration with IMDB will result (as with all Google search products).

However, I found this line of the article, the most interesting insight:

"But heading to the movies is often a last-minute decision, which means consumers are less likely to use the Web for buying movie tickets than they are to buy seats for sporting events or music concerts, Jupiter Research analyst David Card said. "

Sure these are only the words of a professional analyst, but they confirm what my intuition would have me believe. Based on my own moviegoing habits (which are dicated by the price and flexibility of movies) I do feel like most people go to the movies as a last minute decision. Now there is a question of whether this is a set property of theatergoing.

Is it good that people assume this flexibility? Should ticket marketing harness this more effectively? Or would the box office benefit from changing the way people think about movies, and make them less flexible? And does online ticketing have a role in this?

Something like the little theater "Studio Galande" that I just visited in Paris, shows a different movie at every time slot and forces people to the shows at the times they specify. And the people came. And it got me excited about my show. And it helped me narrow down some of the choice I had to make in deciding which film to watch without eliminating my _choice_ of movies.

In any event, I find that the "last minute" nature of movie going is one of its most defining and enigmatic features. I also believe that understanding it fully is the key to the social dynamic supports the emotional connection to the movies. It's behind everything from why online ticketing doesn't currently work to why Multiplexes succeed over single screen palaces.

Film Article | Reuters.com

2005-03-02T10:09:00.000-08:00

Film Article | Reuters.com:

"But with DVD sales of $15 billion in 2004 far surpassing U.S. box office receipts of $9.4 billion, more movie companies are rushing films through theaters and onto retail shelves to take advantage of the advertising and promotion that typically support a film's theatrical release."

More and more stories like these seem to be popping up and the market force behind them is revealed. I only hope that while studios start to think progressively at capturing an early dvd market that they don't do so at the expense of the box office by simply forgetting to use the dvds as a way to get people back in the theaters. The simplest solution to doing something like this will be to play the same set of trailers in the home video versions of dvds as they would in the theaters. And I'm sure studios won't be shy about putting those in their dvds.

Credit Cards go to the Movies

2005-03-02T10:07:00.000-08:00

Loews Cineplex and American Express Announce New Partnership; Strategic Relationship Provides Benefits to American Express Cardmembers and Loews Moviegoers

Cinema Group Plans Co-Branded Card

I'm not exactly sure what is behind the sudden rush for theater chains to be aligned with a credit card, but both of the two largest entities in the industry have seen it necessary to do so. I'm guessing it'll be interesting to follow how the presence of each card in their business strategies will affect their continued advertising at the theaters. Or to follow what they end up providing in general.

Charlotte Observer | 02/18/2005 | Noisy food has no place in a movie theater

2005-02-23T14:25:00.000-08:00

Charlotte Observer | 02/18/2005 | Noisy food has no place in a movie theater: "Despite my affection for new and weird stuff, I detest anything but popcorn at the movies, and feel reasonably fair in wishing all else were banned from theaters. Except gummy candy in the serve-it-yourself bags. That'd be OK. But all the stuff that must be unwrapped, or that drops as you tilt your box (M&Ms, Raisinets, chocolate-covered treats of other varieties, etc.) should be outlawed, I've always thought."

Something to keep in mind...

Mentoring in the Hizzle

2005-02-22T11:16:00.000-08:00

On the way home from Paris, I was reading the kind of article that I tend to find irritating. A lot of articles about metrics and examples of success or how to get it in the corporate world tend to irritate me because they bastardize ideas by highlighting only the most opportunistic facets of what are already watered down justifications for corporate behavior.

But that rant aside, this article was suggesting that the next big thing for creating a successful institution out of a company is a mentoring culture. It was particularly irritating because it's an idea that I've brushed with myself while considering what would make a better educational process, and what I see in corporate culture is nothing like this.

Forgetting most of what the article said, I revisted my thinking on mentoring and tried to refigure what it was that was so much more useful about a mentoring relationship, in my mind. Now that I think about it, it wasn't a very well developed idea at first. I think the main thing I was thinking about was that over time I've found that learning specific skills was never really what I needed to have done throughout my life. I sort of had been rutted into thinking like that from the regimented way that education was presented to me (in subjects and levels of skill). Ironically, this was a very successful method for me, but it was in the success that I think caused what I consider the most glaring omission from my own growth process. The validation of my own ideas and top put it tritely, learning how to think for myself. Not that I think that mentors are the end-all solution to helping you find your own path to self-identification and the subsequent self-motivated path to living a fulfilled life. Not that I even think that validating my own ideas before I was proven or skilled enough to deal with them would be the own answer here (as now it seems clear that the benefit of something really only becomes available after the lack of it).

Still, I try to figure out what would be the best mentoring relationship and I characterize it as the type of relationship where one can have their own specific questions identified and clarified without having to have some best practice applied to solving their problems (which I suppose is contrary to the whole idea of an institution alltogether). The mentor would give an example to follow from his own life while making use of the growing skills of the mentee.

And as if this idea wasn't problematic enough already, how does one then address the problem of getting the mentee to think for himself. Let's say the mentor takes the apprentice on and shows him the nature of his specific interest by enlisting his help in completing a project of his. How does the mentee see anything besides what the mentor shows him. It's a necessary example to have but the most common consequence will not be the mentee seeing how his interests can fit in with the greater picture, but how his skills can fit in with the picture that his mentor has painted. It comes with the territory of the novice not to be excited by the prospect of learning whether his skills fit his position, but with the prospect of seeing how he can help.

Which I figure brings us back to the drawing board.

Furthermore, once a mentor finally figures out what it is that he thinks he needs to do to impart the appropriate level of experience and guidance onto his mentee, he will no longer be the effective enthusiastic teacher that could relate to the students' interest in making the relationship work. It will hold less and less mystery for the person if he is not a natural teacher. The overall ambition of having a ubiquitous program where the valuable information that anyone has (not just that of qualified instructors) can be available will be further away.

Which leads me to think that maybe mentoring is not the way and basically what everyone should do is chronicle their passion and the only institutions should be libraries. Or rather the only instructors should be librarians who have powerful access to google and the explanation abilities of the best kindergarten teachers.

The idea that mentors would eventually lose interest (or evolve their interests beyond what is immediately useful to the mentee) is similar to another idea I had about how long a business should last. At some point, the obstacles to accomplish evolve and they're no longer about pleasing the customer. Every business wants to continue to acheive, but often they get to the point of profitability or supporting a successful product and goals evolve into something else.

And what makes it worse is when those businesses are handed down into hands that were not the founders' Standing on the shoulders of giants has always seemed like a dangerous prospect to me (ever since Jeff Goldblum said it in Jurassic Park) and it happens every day, watering down our industry and hurting the development of people by giving them something in a skewed state.

Theres a strong cry coming from inside me that says all businesses should go away when they leave the hands of their founders. Not just for the prideful reasons that used to be responsible for this idea, but because I genuinely think that it would make for a more thoughtful and fulfilled society. It would probably serve justice and fight crime as well.

Unfortunately, this post has become an essay, and a poorly organized one at that. The main thing I wanted to say was the mentoring in corporate culture is a probably a sham and that we should tear down most institutions so that people can all experience the purpose of building them up.

Popcorn Makes History at the Movies

2005-02-15T20:59:00.000-08:00

Popcorn Makes History at the Movies

Cute - history of popcorn and the movies

Access Integrated Technologies Completes Acquisition of Pavilion Movie Theater/Entertainment Complex in Brooklyn, New York

2005-02-15T20:51:00.000-08:00

Access Integrated Technologies Completes Acquisition of Pavilion Movie Theater/Entertainment Complex in Brooklyn, New York:

"Starting with the installation of a satellite dish on the roof, AccessIT
plans to transition the theatre to digital operation with the installation of
a broad range of digital cinema hardware and software. The complex will
showcase all of AccessIT's integrative digital and analog solutions as well as
those of other industry vendors."

This is really cool. A showcase for all these technologies is a fun idea. Probably more for show and to try stuff out than anything else. I saw the vista electronic ticketing system they plan to use at SHOWEST last year and I wasn't that impressed. I imagine they're just putting up anything that says or seems digital. I hope it works out that and I'd love to see it!

By the way: "(AccessIT) is an early mover inoffering a fully managed storage and delivery service for owners anddistributors of digital content to movie theaters and other venues. "

http://www.accessitx.com

Alameda frets over cozy cinema

2005-02-15T20:41:00.000-08:00

Alameda frets over cozy cinema: "Haskett pointed out the error to city officials, who switched tactics. Now it was fire code violations. Haskett figured city officials were determined to shut him down, using whatever violation they could think of. And none of the city's haranguing made sense to him until a city staffer let one little fact slip out.
Alameda city officials have entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with another cinema operator to renovate a historic movie house and expand it into a multiscreen movie house near Park Street, in one of the city's redevelopment areas. Assistant City Manager Paul Benoit said Thursday that the redevelopment plan was not at all linked to issues between the city and Haskett. "

How are city officials so dirty sometimes :) Well they claim they're not, but here are some potential things that await me in trying to open a business much like this one. I love this guy's style! He used craigslist to buy his couches!!!!