4 ms·

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

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.