Ads in front of movies..... (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Lynda-Marie]

The revenues have long been a source of controversy for movie theaters, from the independent mom and pop theaters, to art houses, and big chains.

When I was just out of high school, I worked for a couple of theaters. Things may have changed since the 80s, but the box office revenues all went right back to the studios for renting the films. I laugh every time I read that something did $ 100 million worth of business in 3 days. "Yeah, that's because you're charging 10 bucks a person to see it."

So the theaters have to have another source of revenues to keep open. Ever wonder why you practically have to take out a second mortgage to buy a popcorn, drink and candy at the movies? Bingo.

Of course, this is kind of shooting themselves in the foot, because it is too expensive to go to the movies and have snacks. I usually eat before the movie so I don't get tempted. Then, some people actually smuggle in their own snacks and drinks, which screws the whole concept of the concession stand being the source of revenue.

Enter the commercials. I agree that it is highly annoying, and that I could see the blasted things at home for free. It would be nice, however, if there were a way for the studios to do a little profit sharing with the theaters that are contributing so much to their pocket books.

As I said, things may have changed, but as far as I know, the theaters are still dependent on concession revenues to stay open, and barring that, commercials.

 

[Sam Favate]

I find use of the ads in movies inexcusable. I'm sick to death of advertising being everywhere in life. Is it too much to ask that a movie I just paid $20 for my date and I to see - and for which I dropped another $12-$14 on drinks and snacks - be devoid of ads? If the theaters or the studios make any money off this, shouldn't the prices come down?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If commercials are a problem, people should patronize the independent theatres in their area that do *not* show ads before the films. I know of several in the NJ/NY/PA area.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Event the independant theaters are starting to show ads, though - I've seen an ad for The Dreamers on DVD every time I've gone to the Brattle in the past month, and before that there were ads for Turner Classic Movies.

I don't mind ads that much - the lights are generally half-up for them and I'm finishing my subway book/crossword - and I find that people who go to the movies less than I do mind them less. Seeing the Fanta ad ten times over the course of a couple weeks is more aggravating than once or twice a month.

 

[todd s]

I also worked at a theater in high school. I was told I could eat all of the popcorn and drink all the soda I wanted. But, we couldn't touch the candy or use any of the cups or buckets. Everyone brought cups from home.

 

[Malcolm R]

No, because as Lynda-Marie says, you're subsidizing the other patrons who do not buy any drinks/snacks. That is where the theater makes its money. The fewer people that patronize the concession stand means they have to make up that money somewhere else, either in higher concession prices for everyone else or selling advertising (or a combination of both).

 

[Lew Crippen]

The studios don’t make money on ads or concessions. The theaters get that (or the theater chain) revenue.

However the theaters don’t make much (if any) money on their box office—especially during the first few weeks of a new release. The distribution chain, to include the studios get almost all of this money (about 95% after the theater deducts its base operating costs).

This is a bit simplistic, but basically, the box office pays for the film rental and that money generates profits for the studio (and distribution chain) and the ads and concessions generate profits for the theater (or theater chain).

 

[Andrew Pezzo]

I dont really care who gets my money for ticket sales and concessions. Either way I am the one paying out the money and after spending what it costs to see a movies with drinks/snacks these days the last thing I want to do is sit through 15 mintues of previews only to have another 10-15 mintues of comercials. This is one of the biggest reasons I rarely go to movies now, I just wait for the DVD release.

If a movie start time is 7:00 I want it to start at 7:00. If the ads were running before that while the theater fills up then I wouldnt mind at all (like the slide show ads of local businesses before the lights dim), but that will never happen.

 

[PaulP]

Isn't it weird that they have commercials for TV shows in theaters? Kinda counterproductive, don't you think?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

When I went to see F/911, I sat through 1/2 hour of commercials and trailers...I timed it on my watch.

Because I like to get a good seat when I go to a film (for $9 I want to be in the middle of the row, about 1/3 back from the screen), I like to show up early. So with a half-hour of commercials/trailers, I'm having to show up at least 45 minutes before the film actually starts.

This makes me want to watch more DVD and avoid the theater. I don't have three hours to burn every time I see a film.

 

[Scott_lb]

Normally I don't like to sit through commercials before a movie either, although I understand the need for the theater to show them. However, there is one ad I would have LOVED to see - the Halo 2 commercial.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Where I live we get the 20 or something to that effect where it's commericials and ads for TV shows. I hate it. We pay $10.00 for a movie and have to deal with this?

There was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about 6 months ago about this and a theatre owner was interviewed and said he never got any complaints so maybe we should all start complaining.

 

[MikeFR]

Commercials are annoying enough, but what really annoys me is the mindless zombies who laugh at all the commercials they are paying to watch.

I just have a real problem paying to sit in a dark auditorium, with dozens of other people, while being bombarded with advertisements. It just seems wrong.

 

[BennyD]

The ads are annoying but in front of Spider-Man 2 there were TWO American Express ads. When they start repeating commercials they're going too far. Needless to say the theaters management got a piece of my mind.

 

[Kristian]

I usually don't mind the ads that much, but there are two ads that I've had to sit through countless times at the theater lately that I hope to never see again. There's the one that flashes a bunch of ugly stuff (including someone's fat ass) on the screen while a song that goes "The world is full of beautiful things..." plays in the background. And then there's an ad for a cellphone with video capabilities where this vacuous girl shows us a trailer of her cliched dating life and she ends with the line "This is a movie about my life made by me". Painful stuff.

On the positive side, I do like that Lance Armstrong ad. The part where he's riding the bike in the rain has some really nice atmospheric qualities to it.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I don't mind ads in theaters as long as they're interesting. What annoys we is when it's the same ads as I see on TV or the same Body Fantasies ad I've been seeing in theaters for 2 years.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But if it's the 20, you DON'T have to deal with it - the program ends when you get to the ticket time.

I totally concur about the hatred toward ads that run AFTER ticket time - not counting trailers - but I can't comprehend why a program that ENDS at ticket time bothers people. (Unless it's so loud and intrusive you can't chat with others during it.) I think the 20 is the perfect way for theaters to have their cake, etc...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Why are they "mindless zombies" - just because they find some commercials amusing? Some commercials ARE amusing - because you're "paying to see them" doesn't make them less entertaining. Do you not think there are some entertaining and well-made commercials?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ok, you guys must have conspired just to confuse me.

I know that if a showtime says 7 PM, and you get there and sit down at 7, you might get 20 minutes of commercials, and then the trailers and the movie. Let's say this takes up 3 hours.

But you go to another movie, get to your seat at 7, and the movie starts up. You got there after the commercials and the trailers, so you're out in 2-1/2 hours.

So you save 30 minutes. You could always show up at the first theater 30 minutes late, knowing that they ran commercials and trailers first, or you could show up 30 minutes early at the 2nd place and watch the commercials and trailers and the movie. It is the same 3 hour block.

What I'm saying is if a place shows the commercials at 7, you'd know this and show up late if you wanted to, but the whole perspective on this gets warped when you are looking for a good seat.

Now, don't you get there on opening night (for a really good show) when the previous showing has just exited so that you can get a good seat? So you're kind of stuck watching the commercials anyway. If you show up at the movie time, you might not even get in, let alone get a seat, let alone getting a good seat, right?

No, the commercials do suck, royally. It would be interesting to find out what the admission price would be if they let us pay enough so that they wouldn't have to put the commercials in. Oh, and before anybody screams too loud, the theater could probably squeeze one or two more showings every day.

Glenn

 

[Sam Favate]

It would be the same. If commercials were keeping the costs down, we wouldn't see an increase in ticket prices just before each Memorial Day or so. Commercials are just another way for theaters to line their pockets. Same as corporate sponsorship of arenas, arts centers and stadiums. When the trend first started in the mid-90s here in NJ it was promoted as a way to lower ticket prices or at least keep them down. Neither happened. Prices went sky-high. I'm not going to believe any theater chain that says commercials are a way to keep prices down -- unless I'm paying the same price 10 years from now. What do you think the chances of that are?