4 ms·

Unfortunately, the lost revenue from marketing would just add cost to tickets. It's likely the theaters get a portion of that revenue if not most of it since i

by ugh123 2y ago

Unfortunately, the lost revenue from marketing would just add cost to tickets. It's likely the theaters get a portion of that revenue if not most of it since it's time spent in their seats.

delichon 2y ago
That ignores the lost revenue from my butt missing from the chair. I watch at home lots more because of such shenanigans.
- mbreese 2y ago
  How likely is it really that you'd go to a theater to watch a movie if they didn't have previews? If you want to see a movie in theaters, that's where you're going to be. If you're taking that view, you're probably not in their target (ahem) audience. I suspect that people are more sensitive to ticket prices than they are seeing ads, so if you're trying to maximize revenue, you'd want to limit increases in ticket prices to keep getting viewers in the seats. Then once they are there, try to extract as much additional revenue as possible (concessions, ads, etc). The theaters showing ads aren't trying to attract new viewers, they are trying to extract as much revenue as possible from their existing customers. (For better or worse)
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I'd say your explanation is accurate, that's the calculus. It's the same everywhere. Unfortunately, the calculus never factors in the fact that it's unsustainable and over time destroys the medium, by changing peoples' and society's relationship with it. C.f. all the stories about "good old times" that are just remembrance of things before they got enshittificated.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  If your time is worth a lot of money, you'll buy a home theatre anyways.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Only if you have the money to spend. $30.00 to see a movie every so often is a lot easier to afford for someone living paycheck to paycheck. A person could probably see movies for several years without reaching the price of a good home theater system.

4 ms·

Unfortunately, the lost revenue from marketing would just add cost to tickets. It's likely the theaters get a portion of that revenue if not most of it since i

by ugh123 2y ago

Unfortunately, the lost revenue from marketing would just add cost to tickets. It's likely the theaters get a portion of that revenue if not most of it since it's time spent in their seats.

delichon 2y ago
That ignores the lost revenue from my butt missing from the chair. I watch at home lots more because of such shenanigans.
- mbreese 2y ago
  How likely is it really that you'd go to a theater to watch a movie if they didn't have previews? If you want to see a movie in theaters, that's where you're going to be. If you're taking that view, you're probably not in their target (ahem) audience. I suspect that people are more sensitive to ticket prices than they are seeing ads, so if you're trying to maximize revenue, you'd want to limit increases in ticket prices to keep getting viewers in the seats. Then once they are there, try to extract as much additional revenue as possible (concessions, ads, etc). The theaters showing ads aren't trying to attract new viewers, they are trying to extract as much revenue as possible from their existing customers. (For better or worse)
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I'd say your explanation is accurate, that's the calculus. It's the same everywhere. Unfortunately, the calculus never factors in the fact that it's unsustainable and over time destroys the medium, by changing peoples' and society's relationship with it. C.f. all the stories about "good old times" that are just remembrance of things before they got enshittificated.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  If your time is worth a lot of money, you'll buy a home theatre anyways.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Only if you have the money to spend. $30.00 to see a movie every so often is a lot easier to afford for someone living paycheck to paycheck. A person could probably see movies for several years without reaching the price of a good home theater system.