3 ms·
AMC's 10k is pretty informative: http://investor.amctheatres.com/Doc/Index?did=39811732 http://investor.amctheatres.com/Doc/Index?did=39811732 Page 17 or so i
by dsr_ 9y ago
AMC's 10k is pretty informative: http://investor.amctheatres.com/Doc/Index?did=39811732 http://investor.amctheatres.com/Doc/Index?did=39811732
Page 17 or so is good: "We predominantly license “first-run” films from distributors owned by major film production companies and from independent distributors on a film-by-film and theatre-by-theatre basis. Film exhibition costs are accrued based on the applicable admissions revenues and estimates of the final settlement pursuant to our film licenses. Licenses that we enter into typically state that rental fees are based on aggregate terms established prior to the opening of the picture."
and then: "Food and beverage sales are our second largest source of revenue after box office admissions."
The ratio, seen later in the document, is basically 65% admissions, 33% food/beverage.
(This surprised me, I had thought it was around 25% admissions.)
I don't see theaters being willing to give up any of that in exchange for a vague promise of extra customers.
On the other hand, I don't see why theaters feel antagonistic towards a company that promises to take investment money and buy full-price tickets with it. That's a complete win for the theaters.
- ghaff 9y agoThat's revenue though. If you look at the income statement, films have about a 50% profit margin while refreshments have about an 85% profit margin. If you allocate all other expenses evenly, that makes it about 50-50 between film and refreshments. That may or may not be appropriate cost accounting (there's another big chunk of operating expense that isn't under G&A or rent) and I just took a quick glance. More of their profit comes from film than I thought--or at least used to be the case--but refreshments still makes a good 50%.