6 ms·

I hope this "innovation" get squashed by regulation.

by yread 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago
Agreed, this is not what you sign up for when you go to the movies. They should focus on improving the experience of their customers, instead of finding new ways to screw them over. Oh and reduce the cost of popcorn - seriously it is a joke.
- eru 16y ago
  No, the popcorn is just a subsidy for the film. It allows cheapskates like me to have a cheaper entrance fee without popcorn.
  - joezydeco 16y ago
    The studios take more than 75% of the ticket price for themselves. The popcorn is keeping the theatre owner afloat.
    - eru 16y ago
      Yes. And without the popcorn, that money to keep the theatre owner afloat would have to come from somewhere else, e.g. the ticket price.
      - fr0sty 16y ago
        yes, but... $10 ticket + $10 concessions = $10 net revenue (%25 of the ticket and %75 on concessions) $20 ticket + no concessions = $5 net revenue. It is the same reason CEO's take $1 salaries and stock grants/options. Salaries are taxed at %36-9 but long-term capital gains tax is only %15.
        eru 16y ago
        Yes. Though we wouldn't know whether the percentage rates would stay the same, if concessions weren't allowed. The current rates were negotiated with concessions in mind.
    - cd34 16y ago
      Studios take a sliding scale percentage. On some new releases, 100% of the ticket price for the first week is taken, sliding to 25% after six weeks. For a theater to make money from the actual movie, they need films like Titanic or Avatar that had extended runs, otherwise, most of the income is purely from concessions. Coke and Pepsi sell their product extremely cheaply to many theaters (and shopping malls if they can work exclusives) for the branding rather than the profit.
      - oiuytgrftgyuio 16y ago
        And yet all those films make a loss ! Holywood needs some better (or worse) accoutnants
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.h... For the past 80 years concession prices have been used to keep ticket prices artificially low, to increase the number of film goers, which helps the theaters stay busy, creates the "experience" (I've yet to be in a crowded theater and someone actually hold up a conversation, or answer a cell phone), and most of all allows greater profits to go to the film companies and allows bigger better quality films to be produced. It's not a joke, it's a sound business strategy. Just like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon sales come from actual "Coca-Cola". This is similar to how I walk into the grocery store and see beef packaged at $1/lb even though I have a relative in the meat packing industry, that actually packages the meat for my local store and he says they (the meat packers) can't sell it for less than $1.50/lb without making a loss.
  - eavc 16y ago
    Do you have a source for this? "Just like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon sales come from actual "Coca-Cola"." I'm just curious because I'd be shocked if 78% of Coca-Cola's sales by volume were from actual Coca-Cola. They don't have dozens of drinks, they have hundreds.
    - azim 16y ago
      I was curious too, so I looked it up. Wikipedia also quotes the 78% number, citing Coca-Cola Co's 2005 SEC filing [1]. However, a cursory read of their SEC filing reveals this: "In 2005, concentrates and syrups for beverages bearing the trademark "Coca-Cola" or including the trademark "Coke" ("Coca-Cola Trademark Beverages") accounted for approximately 55 percent of the Company's total gallon sales." [2] It's possible the 78% number the Wikipedia article is drawing from is based on a newer SEC report which isn't cited correctly. Edit: I Looked up their 10-k from Feb 2010 and found this: "Trademark Coca-Cola Beverages accounted for approximately 51 percent, 51 percent and 53 percent of our worldwide unit case volume for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively." [3] So it looks like Wikipedia may have incorrect information! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company#Revenue [2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002588/a2167326z10-k.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002... [3] http://ir.thecoca-colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDEwNDc0NjktMTAtMDAxNDc2L3htbC9zdWJkb2N1bWVudC8xL3BhZ2UvNw%3d%3d http://ir.thecoca-colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&...
biot 16y ago
I hope in-theater ads get squashed by regulation as it seems not enough vote with their wallet to make an impact.
joubert 16y ago
I'd rather have laws against TALKING, CHEWING IN MY EAR, MAKING PHONE CALLS, and SLURPING LIQUIDS in the movies. Once, I had two folks sitting behind me, with one giving a running summary of the movie dialog to her neighbor since the friend was hard hearing. I wished I had a flashlight that I could shine in their faces.
olalonde 16y ago
I hope this "innovation" makes more people stop going to the movie theater so the movie industry can blame piracy for it.
- staunch 16y ago
  Turn on the flash in the iPhone4's camera app.
- olalonde 16y ago
  For those who keep down voting, it was sarcastic.

I hope this "innovation" get squashed by regulation.

by yread 16y ago

I hope this "innovation" get squashed by regulation.

Agreed, this is not what you sign up for when you go to the movies. They should focus on improving the experience of their customers, instead of finding new ways to screw them over. Oh and reduce the cost of popcorn - seriously it is a joke.

eru 16y ago
No, the popcorn is just a subsidy for the film. It allows cheapskates like me to have a cheaper entrance fee without popcorn.
- joezydeco 16y ago
  The studios take more than 75% of the ticket price for themselves. The popcorn is keeping the theatre owner afloat.
  - eru 16y ago
    Yes. And without the popcorn, that money to keep the theatre owner afloat would have to come from somewhere else, e.g. the ticket price.
    - fr0sty 16y ago
      yes, but... $10 ticket + $10 concessions = $10 net revenue (%25 of the ticket and %75 on concessions) $20 ticket + no concessions = $5 net revenue. It is the same reason CEO's take $1 salaries and stock grants/options. Salaries are taxed at %36-9 but long-term capital gains tax is only %15.
      - eru 16y ago
        Yes. Though we wouldn't know whether the percentage rates would stay the same, if concessions weren't allowed. The current rates were negotiated with concessions in mind.
  - cd34 16y ago
    Studios take a sliding scale percentage. On some new releases, 100% of the ticket price for the first week is taken, sliding to 25% after six weeks. For a theater to make money from the actual movie, they need films like Titanic or Avatar that had extended runs, otherwise, most of the income is purely from concessions. Coke and Pepsi sell their product extremely cheaply to many theaters (and shopping malls if they can work exclusives) for the branding rather than the profit.
    - oiuytgrftgyuio 16y ago
      And yet all those films make a loss ! Holywood needs some better (or worse) accoutnants
electromagnetic 16y ago
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.html http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/hartmann.popcorn.h... For the past 80 years concession prices have been used to keep ticket prices artificially low, to increase the number of film goers, which helps the theaters stay busy, creates the "experience" (I've yet to be in a crowded theater and someone actually hold up a conversation, or answer a cell phone), and most of all allows greater profits to go to the film companies and allows bigger better quality films to be produced. It's not a joke, it's a sound business strategy. Just like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon sales come from actual "Coca-Cola". This is similar to how I walk into the grocery store and see beef packaged at $1/lb even though I have a relative in the meat packing industry, that actually packages the meat for my local store and he says they (the meat packers) can't sell it for less than $1.50/lb without making a loss.
- eavc 16y ago
  Do you have a source for this? "Just like how Coca-Cola and Pepsi have two-dozen drink products each even though 78% of Coca-Cola's gallon sales come from actual "Coca-Cola"." I'm just curious because I'd be shocked if 78% of Coca-Cola's sales by volume were from actual Coca-Cola. They don't have dozens of drinks, they have hundreds.
  - azim 16y ago
    I was curious too, so I looked it up. Wikipedia also quotes the 78% number, citing Coca-Cola Co's 2005 SEC filing [1]. However, a cursory read of their SEC filing reveals this: "In 2005, concentrates and syrups for beverages bearing the trademark "Coca-Cola" or including the trademark "Coke" ("Coca-Cola Trademark Beverages") accounted for approximately 55 percent of the Company's total gallon sales." [2] It's possible the 78% number the Wikipedia article is drawing from is based on a newer SEC report which isn't cited correctly. Edit: I Looked up their 10-k from Feb 2010 and found this: "Trademark Coca-Cola Beverages accounted for approximately 51 percent, 51 percent and 53 percent of our worldwide unit case volume for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively." [3] So it looks like Wikipedia may have incorrect information! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company#Revenue [2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002588/a2167326z10-k.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/21344/000104746906002... [3] http://ir.thecoca-colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDEwNDc0NjktMTAtMDAxNDc2L3htbC9zdWJkb2N1bWVudC8xL3BhZ2UvNw%3d%3d http://ir.thecoca-colacompany.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94566&...

biot 16y ago

I hope in-theater ads get squashed by regulation as it seems not enough vote with their wallet to make an impact.

joubert 16y ago

I'd rather have laws against TALKING, CHEWING IN MY EAR, MAKING PHONE CALLS, and SLURPING LIQUIDS in the movies. Once, I had two folks sitting behind me, with one giving a running summary of the movie dialog to her neighbor since the friend was hard hearing. I wished I had a flashlight that I could shine in their faces.

olalonde 16y ago

I hope this "innovation" makes more people stop going to the movie theater so the movie industry can blame piracy for it.

staunch 16y ago
Turn on the flash in the iPhone4's camera app.
olalonde 16y ago
For those who keep down voting, it was sarcastic.