3 ms·

This is not true. AMC decided on its own to base reimbursements to studios on an average ticket price of 8.99. There was no negotiation, and no guarantee studio

This is not true. AMC decided on its own to base reimbursements to studios on an average ticket price of 8.99. There was no negotiation, and no guarantee studios will continue to accept this rate. So far, studios are taking a watch-and-see attitude, hoping the overall quantity increases but currently, a studio exec sums it up by saying "I'm taking a haircut". https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-subscription-offer-raises-studios-eyebrows.html https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/06/25/amc-s...

scarface74 7y ago
So exactly what are you saying different than what I said? AMC couldn’t “decide on their own” without getting the studios to agree with the rate. The studios have all sorts of leverage.
- listenallyall 7y ago
  Do you not understand what negotiating is? AMC made up a number, they didn't ask the studios nor have the studios agreed on that number going forward. If I've hired you to mow my lawn for $50 every week, and then one day I choose to only leave $45 in the envelope, that's not a negotiation.
  - jonny_eh 7y ago
    But if you show up, you've agreed to the offer. The studios are still cooperating, thereby implicitly agreeing to the terms. It sounds like you're getting hung up on whether there's a signed contract somewhere.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      AMC, and only AMC, has determined the price upon which AList reimbursements are currently being based. The success of the program seems to rely upon this number, yet they have no guarantee, implicitly or explicitly, that studios will continue to accept this rate. So yeah, a signed contract that spells out the terms would make a pretty big difference.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And the studios had the right to walk away if the number is too low. My employer decided my salary and benefits and came in with an above market offer, that they thought I would more than likely accept. That didn’t mean I was obligated to accept the offer or that we didn’t make an agreement. I live in an at will state and never once signed a piece of paper saying that I couldn’t walk in tomorrow and say f’ it I quit. Once I do that, we terminate our agreement. That didn’t mean I didn’t have one yesterday. My willingness to work everyday also depends on a lot of factors, there is no guarantee that I won’t go in the office tomorrow and turn in my resignation. Even if I and my employer agree to an at will work condition doesn’t mean we didn’t come to an agreement.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    AMC offered a number, the studio gave AMC permission to show the movies. How did that happen without an “agreement”? If a company offers me a salary and I take the job, does that mean we didn’t make an “agreement” that they pay me money and I come to work because I can walk away from the job at anytime? If you hire me to mow the lawn for $50 and then you only pay me $45, I have every right to come after you for the other $5. If a company told me they were going to pay me $150k a year and I came to work every day and they paid me less at the end of the pay period, you better believe that they will end up in court. They couldn’t just decide to pay me less. Well they could, but they will still be liable.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      The studios haven't given any permission, AList is still a small minority of overall ticket sales, studios are obviously hesitant to launch the nuclear option and pull films entirely, especially over what is now a small amount. That doesn't mean they can't or won't going forward, however. Just like you would take the short-changing employer to court, so might the studios. But you'd probably keep working at 140k per year while the lawsuit is pending, because it's better than zero and you'd expect to eventually be made whole.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        The studios haven't given any permission Are you claiming that AMC is showing movies without the studios permission? AList is still a small minority of overall ticket sales, studios are obviously hesitant to launch the nuclear option and pull films entirely, especially over what is now a small amount. I’m also hesitant to leave my job and I would hope that my company is hesitant to fire me even though my employment is a small part of their budget. Part of the hesitancy on their side is hopefully that I bring value to the company. The hesitancy on my side is that I have a mortgage due on the 15th of every month. Just because I can walk out of my job tomorrow or they could fire me tomorrow (the nuclear option), doesn’t mean that my employer and I didn’t make an agreement. On the other hand, are you implying that one day, that the studios are just going to reject AMC’s check, without setting up some type of meeting and coming to different terms - ie negotiate. That’s the whole concept of a BATNA, that each party decides would they be better off with the deal or without it. Just because the BATNA can change when facts on the ground change and either party can come back to the table to renegotiate their agreement at any time, doesn’t mean their isn’t one. That doesn't mean they can't or won't going forward, however. Just like you would take the short-changing employer to court, so might the studios. But you'd probably keep working at 140k per year while the lawsuit is pending, because it's better than zero and you'd expect to eventually be made whole. You really think that the studios are letting AMC pay them less than they find acceptable and they are still allowing AMC show their movies? Do you think that the studios are going to come back and sue AMC later because they didn’t get enough money from them?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I don't think you understand what a legal negotiation is. AMC offered $8.99 (or more) to studios for each A-List ticket. The studios implicitly accepted this offer by agreeing to show films in AMC theaters. That is actually how many negotiations proceed in the business world It's very possible that some studios did negotiate carve-outs or increased payouts for A-list tickets, which is something that Disney is notorious for doing with its bigger films. Indeed, since movie distribution deals are negotiated with theaters per film (a requirement of an old 1950s era law), it's very likely that at least one studio (i.e., Disney) has negotiated higher shares for A-list tickets.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      It's also possible that the distribution schedule and reimbursement formula for every big Disney film released so far was signed prior to the announcement of AList (barely a year old), and those contracts have no concept of film subscriptions, which is where AMC is trying to fill in the blank with a lowball number. If the studios were happy, they wouldn't signal uncertainty and dissatisfaction to investors by bitching to the Wall Street Journal. That can only negatively affect all parties.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        That’s not how things work. Do you really think that AMC would base their entire subscription plan on using a supposed loophole hoping that none of the six big studios would sue them or change their mind? Uber may try that, but real grown up businesses don’t do things like that.
        listenallyall 7y ago
        Stop asking "do you really think," which you've done five(!) times already. It is irrelevant what I think. My comments are backed by reputable sources. If you have facts, post them.
        scarface74 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

So exactly what are you saying different than what I said? AMC couldn’t “decide on their own” without getting the studios to agree with the rate. The studios have all sorts of leverage.

listenallyall 7y ago
Do you not understand what negotiating is? AMC made up a number, they didn't ask the studios nor have the studios agreed on that number going forward. If I've hired you to mow my lawn for $50 every week, and then one day I choose to only leave $45 in the envelope, that's not a negotiation.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  But if you show up, you've agreed to the offer. The studios are still cooperating, thereby implicitly agreeing to the terms. It sounds like you're getting hung up on whether there's a signed contract somewhere.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    AMC, and only AMC, has determined the price upon which AList reimbursements are currently being based. The success of the program seems to rely upon this number, yet they have no guarantee, implicitly or explicitly, that studios will continue to accept this rate. So yeah, a signed contract that spells out the terms would make a pretty big difference.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And the studios had the right to walk away if the number is too low. My employer decided my salary and benefits and came in with an above market offer, that they thought I would more than likely accept. That didn’t mean I was obligated to accept the offer or that we didn’t make an agreement. I live in an at will state and never once signed a piece of paper saying that I couldn’t walk in tomorrow and say f’ it I quit. Once I do that, we terminate our agreement. That didn’t mean I didn’t have one yesterday. My willingness to work everyday also depends on a lot of factors, there is no guarantee that I won’t go in the office tomorrow and turn in my resignation. Even if I and my employer agree to an at will work condition doesn’t mean we didn’t come to an agreement.
- scarface74 7y ago
  AMC offered a number, the studio gave AMC permission to show the movies. How did that happen without an “agreement”? If a company offers me a salary and I take the job, does that mean we didn’t make an “agreement” that they pay me money and I come to work because I can walk away from the job at anytime? If you hire me to mow the lawn for $50 and then you only pay me $45, I have every right to come after you for the other $5. If a company told me they were going to pay me $150k a year and I came to work every day and they paid me less at the end of the pay period, you better believe that they will end up in court. They couldn’t just decide to pay me less. Well they could, but they will still be liable.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    The studios haven't given any permission, AList is still a small minority of overall ticket sales, studios are obviously hesitant to launch the nuclear option and pull films entirely, especially over what is now a small amount. That doesn't mean they can't or won't going forward, however. Just like you would take the short-changing employer to court, so might the studios. But you'd probably keep working at 140k per year while the lawsuit is pending, because it's better than zero and you'd expect to eventually be made whole.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The studios haven't given any permission Are you claiming that AMC is showing movies without the studios permission? AList is still a small minority of overall ticket sales, studios are obviously hesitant to launch the nuclear option and pull films entirely, especially over what is now a small amount. I’m also hesitant to leave my job and I would hope that my company is hesitant to fire me even though my employment is a small part of their budget. Part of the hesitancy on their side is hopefully that I bring value to the company. The hesitancy on my side is that I have a mortgage due on the 15th of every month. Just because I can walk out of my job tomorrow or they could fire me tomorrow (the nuclear option), doesn’t mean that my employer and I didn’t make an agreement. On the other hand, are you implying that one day, that the studios are just going to reject AMC’s check, without setting up some type of meeting and coming to different terms - ie negotiate. That’s the whole concept of a BATNA, that each party decides would they be better off with the deal or without it. Just because the BATNA can change when facts on the ground change and either party can come back to the table to renegotiate their agreement at any time, doesn’t mean their isn’t one. That doesn't mean they can't or won't going forward, however. Just like you would take the short-changing employer to court, so might the studios. But you'd probably keep working at 140k per year while the lawsuit is pending, because it's better than zero and you'd expect to eventually be made whole. You really think that the studios are letting AMC pay them less than they find acceptable and they are still allowing AMC show their movies? Do you think that the studios are going to come back and sue AMC later because they didn’t get enough money from them?
- gamblor956 7y ago
  I don't think you understand what a legal negotiation is. AMC offered $8.99 (or more) to studios for each A-List ticket. The studios implicitly accepted this offer by agreeing to show films in AMC theaters. That is actually how many negotiations proceed in the business world It's very possible that some studios did negotiate carve-outs or increased payouts for A-list tickets, which is something that Disney is notorious for doing with its bigger films. Indeed, since movie distribution deals are negotiated with theaters per film (a requirement of an old 1950s era law), it's very likely that at least one studio (i.e., Disney) has negotiated higher shares for A-list tickets.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    It's also possible that the distribution schedule and reimbursement formula for every big Disney film released so far was signed prior to the announcement of AList (barely a year old), and those contracts have no concept of film subscriptions, which is where AMC is trying to fill in the blank with a lowball number. If the studios were happy, they wouldn't signal uncertainty and dissatisfaction to investors by bitching to the Wall Street Journal. That can only negatively affect all parties.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      That’s not how things work. Do you really think that AMC would base their entire subscription plan on using a supposed loophole hoping that none of the six big studios would sue them or change their mind? Uber may try that, but real grown up businesses don’t do things like that.
      - listenallyall 7y ago
        Stop asking "do you really think," which you've done five(!) times already. It is irrelevant what I think. My comments are backed by reputable sources. If you have facts, post them.
        scarface74 7y ago