14 ms·

When I worked in the movie box, that was not at all true. People would come in and ask about the movie. How long was it, whether it was any good, should they se

When I worked in the movie box, that was not at all true. People would come in and ask about the movie. How long was it, whether it was any good, should they see another one instead? We gave them real answers. Just because you have a minimum wage job doesn't mean you're a bump on a log. If you've lost sight of the value of basic human interaction with anyone not baked into your caste, I pity you, even if you are in the majority. Also, 99% of movies today are crap, so there's not much to talk about.

cracell 9y ago
I would find this super annoying while waiting in line to buy tickets. If that's a service that makes sense to have theaters can always keep it. One staffed line for people that want to chit chat and automated kiosks for people like me who just want to buy a ticket.
- dexterdog 9y ago
  My local big theater has exactly that
- tedmiston 9y ago
  Doesn't every theater have automated ticketing kiosks now?
cbanek 9y ago
Like I said in my original comment, even if the people are great, they are usually doing a very boring repetitive job. And even if they aren't a "bump on a log," many employers these days honestly want them to be. (liability, efficiency) They really want a robot that is cheaper, not a person. There are so many rules about what an employee can and should do now, especially for lower level jobs. What they can say, how they can say it, what abilities they have to resolve customer problems, if they should interact with the customers at all, etc. I honestly think the whole demise of customer service is the result of this. People feel in a double bind because they aren't allowed and aren't supposed to help customers. Or if they can, they aren't rewarded for it and take a greater risk by doing it. People can do much greater things, be more helpful, be more friendly, and generally add value - if their employer would allow and reward it. But most are just looking at profit, and speed from entry to exit, and a lot of customers are too.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'd argue that those companies that have squeezed the humanity out of their workers are the first ones getting dislocated by the market. E.g. Blockbuster being bankrupt and our local independent video store doing just fine. Or McDonald's vs Waffle House. If you play was "we can provide a worse service for less" then yes, you're going to get steamrolled by automation. If your business is run around adding value (like informative parent of yore in the ticket booth), then your value is going to increase until strong AI (if that ever happens). Assuming people like talking to humans. Sometimes I wonder about the HN crowd...
  - cbanek 9y ago
    I think you hit it on the head - it depends on the service being provided, and how the people relate to providing it. Some people like talking to humans, some don't. It often changes as well. But for incredibly basic mundane transactions, I'd lean on the "I don't like talking to humans." But it's also slower to talk to humans, and generally there is a line, making it again slower. If I have to add travel time in there, that's a factor. So if the person at the end doesn't add at least some positive value (other than just doing what I need done), I'd rather go the faster way. Also, if a company is squeezing the workers and not the market, that probably means that company is having trouble no matter what the workers are doing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - intended 9y ago
    A major point of data missing in your example is all the many, many cafes, diners and other eateries which Mc Donald's itself wiped out. The point being that lots of independent and service focused restaurants have died, and automation, consistency and efficiency has decimated the alternative.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I look at it in terms of competitive advantage. (And I'm not authoritative on any of the following, so don't take me as gospel) Imho, McD and the first wave of franchisee stores leveraged price and consistency as their advantage. Their logistic chains were more efficient, and they could standardize their operation (benefit to efficiency and customer). The market did decide that their prices (which were nationally set afaik) and consistency won over the qualities independent chains brought to the picture. However, I think in the intervening years there have been a few developments. Firstly, Sysco and the national food suppliers as intermediaries. So aside from volume discounts, everyone's sitting on the same logistics backing now. Secondly, consistency as a commodity. Whereas before this was a competitive advantage (because it distinguished them from Local Dairy Freeze 283), now it's the market average. I see it as, as you noted, McD's and the like put everyone else out of business... but we're now in the future past that where they have become the model that's ripe for disruption. Maybe that looks like Chipotle and Five Guys (limited menu, better product, slightly higher price), or maybe it looks like a return to local service, now backed by automation and turnkey logistics chains. I can't see a future with McD's where it isn't a fully-automated, human-less burger factory though. Unless they basically toss out their existing business model.
cujo 9y ago
> 99% of movies today are crap, so there's not much to talk about So it's true now, then. > If you've lost sight of the value of basic human interaction with anyone not baked into your caste, I pity you, even if you are in the majority. This seems a bit extreme. I assume you don't use ATMs, auto-bill pay, or automatic check deposit then either? Because you clearly value human interaction at all possible avenues? Perhaps people's "need" for interaction as they go about their day is somewhere in the middle.
brandonmenc 9y ago
> When I worked in the movie box, that was not at all true. People would come in and ask about the movie. How long was it, whether it was any good, should they see another one instead? We gave them real answers. Your smartphone gives you all of these answers now.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Perhaps it's a matter of trusting the person behind the counter over your smartphone.
  - Erik816 9y ago
    Why trust one random person (who may not have even seen the movie you are interested in, share your preferences, or be particular insightful) when you can have the aggregate wisdom of everyone who has seen the movie and cared enough to rate it?
    - jimbokun 9y ago
      Why trust the waiter over Yelp?
      - kefka 9y ago
        Oh yes. BaaB - blackmail as a business.
        weaksauce 9y ago
        Side question... Is there anything better than Yelp?
        majormajor 9y ago
        Knowing people in real life.
paulddraper 9y ago
> 99% of movies today are crap Survivorship bias. They always have been.
- coldtea 9y ago
  "Things are always the same" fallacy. No, there are periods that are artistically more fruitful and interesting that others, and the history of art knows and documents several of them.
  - brownbat 9y ago
    > there are periods that are artistically more fruitful and interesting that others, Sure, but the claim was just that there have always been bad movies. Here's a test: If there's some year you know of where bad movies were exceptionally rare, let us know. Then we'll see if we can provide counterexamples.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      My pick for year is 1878. I'd love to see your examples. But really, how do you quantify good? Taste is subjective. The original Transformers move is a great example. I didn't like it. but i believe 14 year old me would have absolutely loved it. It's similar to the statistics about Word users only use 5% of the functionality of Word. But everybody uses a different 5%. I guess if you want to go by money, i'm going to pick 1939. I'd guess about $18,000,000 in production expenses, and about $240,000,000 in box. [1] (arbitrarily assigning 1,000,000 to the unlisted numbers, but keeping the box at $0 for unlisted numbers) Seems like a pretty good ROI. (although i think of, Gone with the wind, Mr Smith goes to washington, and the Wizard of Oz as subjectively good. 25% is a pretty good percentage) Kind of a fun exercise poking through the years. 1997 was a standout, but everything i looked at had memorable and fun movies. I don't think any year would hit that 25% mark though. [1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1939 http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1939
      - brownbat 9y ago
maverick_iceman 9y ago
Was this in planet Earth or somewhere else? I've been to over 1000 movies and have never seen it happening with me or anyone else.
dsacco 9y ago
There was probably a nicer way to make that point without attacking the parent's awareness of "the value of basic human interaction." For what it's worth, I didn't infer any value judgement about caste in the comment.
- 1_2__3 9y ago
  I did and think the reply's tone was perfectly reasonable given the parent comment's dismissiveness. Yeah I do like interacting with people. Even "minimum wage workers" who last time I checked were still people.
  - douche 9y ago
    That's fine. Some of us are already maxed out on our low budget of human interaction and craze cold, mechanical, impersonal efficiency. Dealing with error-prone, chatty human beings is not fun for some of us, when they simply serve as an obstacle to what we need.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Sure, but my point is that he never said they're not people. I believe you're reading something in it that isn't really there. It feels like you're unfairly mischaracterizing what was actually said, which was rather neutral. Some people (myself included) appreciate minimum wage workers as humans and still want the efficiency that comes with automation. It's a mixed bag. When I'm at CVS I would rather have actual cashiers. At a movie theater I'd rather have a ticket machine.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
saulrh 9y ago
When and where did that happen? Every time I've been to a movie theater in the last fifteen years, it's had a ten-person line and everybody was in get-in-get-out mode. I can see value in moving the people in the box sideways into a reviewing-and-recommending role, but that's a sideways move as a result of the current role disappearing.
hkmurakami 9y ago
It's like the (independent) bookstore employee. They probably make minimum wage but they are interesting to talk to, are up to date on the latest great books, and really do add to the value of the store.

cracell 9y ago

I would find this super annoying while waiting in line to buy tickets. If that's a service that makes sense to have theaters can always keep it. One staffed line for people that want to chit chat and automated kiosks for people like me who just want to buy a ticket.

dexterdog 9y ago
My local big theater has exactly that
tedmiston 9y ago
Doesn't every theater have automated ticketing kiosks now?

cbanek 9y ago

Like I said in my original comment, even if the people are great, they are usually doing a very boring repetitive job. And even if they aren't a "bump on a log," many employers these days honestly want them to be. (liability, efficiency) They really want a robot that is cheaper, not a person. There are so many rules about what an employee can and should do now, especially for lower level jobs. What they can say, how they can say it, what abilities they have to resolve customer problems, if they should interact with the customers at all, etc. I honestly think the whole demise of customer service is the result of this. People feel in a double bind because they aren't allowed and aren't supposed to help customers. Or if they can, they aren't rewarded for it and take a greater risk by doing it. People can do much greater things, be more helpful, be more friendly, and generally add value - if their employer would allow and reward it. But most are just looking at profit, and speed from entry to exit, and a lot of customers are too.

ethbro 9y ago
I'd argue that those companies that have squeezed the humanity out of their workers are the first ones getting dislocated by the market. E.g. Blockbuster being bankrupt and our local independent video store doing just fine. Or McDonald's vs Waffle House. If you play was "we can provide a worse service for less" then yes, you're going to get steamrolled by automation. If your business is run around adding value (like informative parent of yore in the ticket booth), then your value is going to increase until strong AI (if that ever happens). Assuming people like talking to humans. Sometimes I wonder about the HN crowd...
- cbanek 9y ago
  I think you hit it on the head - it depends on the service being provided, and how the people relate to providing it. Some people like talking to humans, some don't. It often changes as well. But for incredibly basic mundane transactions, I'd lean on the "I don't like talking to humans." But it's also slower to talk to humans, and generally there is a line, making it again slower. If I have to add travel time in there, that's a factor. So if the person at the end doesn't add at least some positive value (other than just doing what I need done), I'd rather go the faster way. Also, if a company is squeezing the workers and not the market, that probably means that company is having trouble no matter what the workers are doing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- intended 9y ago
  A major point of data missing in your example is all the many, many cafes, diners and other eateries which Mc Donald's itself wiped out. The point being that lots of independent and service focused restaurants have died, and automation, consistency and efficiency has decimated the alternative.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I look at it in terms of competitive advantage. (And I'm not authoritative on any of the following, so don't take me as gospel) Imho, McD and the first wave of franchisee stores leveraged price and consistency as their advantage. Their logistic chains were more efficient, and they could standardize their operation (benefit to efficiency and customer). The market did decide that their prices (which were nationally set afaik) and consistency won over the qualities independent chains brought to the picture. However, I think in the intervening years there have been a few developments. Firstly, Sysco and the national food suppliers as intermediaries. So aside from volume discounts, everyone's sitting on the same logistics backing now. Secondly, consistency as a commodity. Whereas before this was a competitive advantage (because it distinguished them from Local Dairy Freeze 283), now it's the market average. I see it as, as you noted, McD's and the like put everyone else out of business... but we're now in the future past that where they have become the model that's ripe for disruption. Maybe that looks like Chipotle and Five Guys (limited menu, better product, slightly higher price), or maybe it looks like a return to local service, now backed by automation and turnkey logistics chains. I can't see a future with McD's where it isn't a fully-automated, human-less burger factory though. Unless they basically toss out their existing business model.

cujo 9y ago

> 99% of movies today are crap, so there's not much to talk about So it's true now, then. > If you've lost sight of the value of basic human interaction with anyone not baked into your caste, I pity you, even if you are in the majority. This seems a bit extreme. I assume you don't use ATMs, auto-bill pay, or automatic check deposit then either? Because you clearly value human interaction at all possible avenues? Perhaps people's "need" for interaction as they go about their day is somewhere in the middle.

brandonmenc 9y ago

> When I worked in the movie box, that was not at all true. People would come in and ask about the movie. How long was it, whether it was any good, should they see another one instead? We gave them real answers. Your smartphone gives you all of these answers now.

wavefunction 9y ago
Perhaps it's a matter of trusting the person behind the counter over your smartphone.
- Erik816 9y ago
  Why trust one random person (who may not have even seen the movie you are interested in, share your preferences, or be particular insightful) when you can have the aggregate wisdom of everyone who has seen the movie and cared enough to rate it?
  - jimbokun 9y ago
    Why trust the waiter over Yelp?
    - kefka 9y ago
      Oh yes. BaaB - blackmail as a business.
      - weaksauce 9y ago
        Side question... Is there anything better than Yelp?
        majormajor 9y ago
        Knowing people in real life.

paulddraper 9y ago

> 99% of movies today are crap Survivorship bias. They always have been.

coldtea 9y ago
"Things are always the same" fallacy. No, there are periods that are artistically more fruitful and interesting that others, and the history of art knows and documents several of them.
- brownbat 9y ago
  > there are periods that are artistically more fruitful and interesting that others, Sure, but the claim was just that there have always been bad movies. Here's a test: If there's some year you know of where bad movies were exceptionally rare, let us know. Then we'll see if we can provide counterexamples.
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    My pick for year is 1878. I'd love to see your examples. But really, how do you quantify good? Taste is subjective. The original Transformers move is a great example. I didn't like it. but i believe 14 year old me would have absolutely loved it. It's similar to the statistics about Word users only use 5% of the functionality of Word. But everybody uses a different 5%. I guess if you want to go by money, i'm going to pick 1939. I'd guess about $18,000,000 in production expenses, and about $240,000,000 in box. [1] (arbitrarily assigning 1,000,000 to the unlisted numbers, but keeping the box at $0 for unlisted numbers) Seems like a pretty good ROI. (although i think of, Gone with the wind, Mr Smith goes to washington, and the Wizard of Oz as subjectively good. 25% is a pretty good percentage) Kind of a fun exercise poking through the years. 1997 was a standout, but everything i looked at had memorable and fun movies. I don't think any year would hit that 25% mark though. [1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1939 http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1939
    - brownbat 9y ago

maverick_iceman 9y ago

Was this in planet Earth or somewhere else? I've been to over 1000 movies and have never seen it happening with me or anyone else.

dsacco 9y ago

There was probably a nicer way to make that point without attacking the parent's awareness of "the value of basic human interaction." For what it's worth, I didn't infer any value judgement about caste in the comment.

1_2__3 9y ago
I did and think the reply's tone was perfectly reasonable given the parent comment's dismissiveness. Yeah I do like interacting with people. Even "minimum wage workers" who last time I checked were still people.
- douche 9y ago
  That's fine. Some of us are already maxed out on our low budget of human interaction and craze cold, mechanical, impersonal efficiency. Dealing with error-prone, chatty human beings is not fun for some of us, when they simply serve as an obstacle to what we need.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Sure, but my point is that he never said they're not people. I believe you're reading something in it that isn't really there. It feels like you're unfairly mischaracterizing what was actually said, which was rather neutral. Some people (myself included) appreciate minimum wage workers as humans and still want the efficiency that comes with automation. It's a mixed bag. When I'm at CVS I would rather have actual cashiers. At a movie theater I'd rather have a ticket machine.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

saulrh 9y ago

When and where did that happen? Every time I've been to a movie theater in the last fifteen years, it's had a ten-person line and everybody was in get-in-get-out mode. I can see value in moving the people in the box sideways into a reviewing-and-recommending role, but that's a sideways move as a result of the current role disappearing.

hkmurakami 9y ago

It's like the (independent) bookstore employee. They probably make minimum wage but they are interesting to talk to, are up to date on the latest great books, and really do add to the value of the store.