4 ms·

Exactly - it costs the same amount whether the theater is full or there is one person in it. Therefore if the theater is empty, they should be charging LESS to

Exactly - it costs the same amount whether the theater is full or there is one person in it. Therefore if the theater is empty, they should be charging LESS to get more people inside it, since the marginal cost of each additional viewer is very near zero.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Empty theatres are desired, because you always need somewhere for the people who can't get into the box office smash hit to go. Let's say you go to see Titanic. You get to the theatre and surprise, sold out. What do you do? Go home? Nope. You go see Gigli, even though that movie would never have brought you to the theatre in the first place. And, you pay the same price as you would have paid to go see the movie you did want to see. You're suggesting that these people pay less. You're also suggesting that if Gigli was $3 instead of $12, you would actually get off your butt and come to the theatre to see that steaming pile of excrement - knowing full well that everyone reviewing it is telling you it's crap. I think not. Why do you think the studios position the movies that they know will be very good/in high demand to come out at staggered times? Yup, to ensure that there is always overflow.
- hegemonicon 17y ago
  If that's true, then an overflow movie could gain a great advantage over the other overflow movies by lowering its ticket prices.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Um, except that they are all in the same theatre? The theatre owner doesn't give a damn what you watch, as long as you're watching something and buying $10 popcorn. In other words, blockbuster hits entice you to enter the theatre, his job is to make you stay. If he fills up all his theatres with non-customers paying $3, he is unable to achieve this task. Knowing that it is extremely rare for you to make it to the theatre and not see a movie, there is no incentive for him to offer any lower prices. If you make it to the theatre, the sale is but guaranteed. Lowering prices after the sale is guaranteed is a stupid way to do business.
    - hegemonicon 17y ago
      You paint a plausible scenario. But the ticket price isn't all going to the theater owner. Most of it goes to the studio (theaters make most of their money off of concessions as I understand it). Since different studios are competing with each other in the same theater, there is definitely room for price reduction.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        Another thing to keep in mind is that discounted movie tickets run into another problem - home rentals. If the choice becomes, watch Titanic for $10, Gigli for $6 or return home and watch last year's Titanic for $5, you're introducing a choice that the consumer would have never before considered. There was a trend ten years ago to take all those 80's style multiplexes in malls and turn them into cheapo discount theatres. Most of these theatres no longer exist, most likely because the product can't compete with the home rental. EDIT: You changed your comment, so I'll respond. Theatres make about 25-55% of the ticket price, and their take increases the longer the movie is shown. That's why you don't have 12 theatres of Titanic. It's also why there is no real incentive for them to reduce the price.

run4yourlives 17y ago

Empty theatres are desired, because you always need somewhere for the people who can't get into the box office smash hit to go. Let's say you go to see Titanic. You get to the theatre and surprise, sold out. What do you do? Go home? Nope. You go see Gigli, even though that movie would never have brought you to the theatre in the first place. And, you pay the same price as you would have paid to go see the movie you did want to see. You're suggesting that these people pay less. You're also suggesting that if Gigli was $3 instead of $12, you would actually get off your butt and come to the theatre to see that steaming pile of excrement - knowing full well that everyone reviewing it is telling you it's crap. I think not. Why do you think the studios position the movies that they know will be very good/in high demand to come out at staggered times? Yup, to ensure that there is always overflow.

hegemonicon 17y ago
If that's true, then an overflow movie could gain a great advantage over the other overflow movies by lowering its ticket prices.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Um, except that they are all in the same theatre? The theatre owner doesn't give a damn what you watch, as long as you're watching something and buying $10 popcorn. In other words, blockbuster hits entice you to enter the theatre, his job is to make you stay. If he fills up all his theatres with non-customers paying $3, he is unable to achieve this task. Knowing that it is extremely rare for you to make it to the theatre and not see a movie, there is no incentive for him to offer any lower prices. If you make it to the theatre, the sale is but guaranteed. Lowering prices after the sale is guaranteed is a stupid way to do business.
  - hegemonicon 17y ago
    You paint a plausible scenario. But the ticket price isn't all going to the theater owner. Most of it goes to the studio (theaters make most of their money off of concessions as I understand it). Since different studios are competing with each other in the same theater, there is definitely room for price reduction.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Another thing to keep in mind is that discounted movie tickets run into another problem - home rentals. If the choice becomes, watch Titanic for $10, Gigli for $6 or return home and watch last year's Titanic for $5, you're introducing a choice that the consumer would have never before considered. There was a trend ten years ago to take all those 80's style multiplexes in malls and turn them into cheapo discount theatres. Most of these theatres no longer exist, most likely because the product can't compete with the home rental. EDIT: You changed your comment, so I'll respond. Theatres make about 25-55% of the ticket price, and their take increases the longer the movie is shown. That's why you don't have 12 theatres of Titanic. It's also why there is no real incentive for them to reduce the price.