Why movie tickets should be cheaper?!

[justinisfilming]

Ok. I need help! For my persuasive speech, I'm planning to do something about lowering movie ticket prices.

Now being a filmmaker, I would immediately think "Oh, lowering the price means I wouldn't make money off of my film". Well my thinking is that, by lowering the price, I (the filmmaker) could actually get more money. How?

1) People would stop watching movies for free through piracy. I'd rather have a couple of people watch my movies and pay something, rather than them not pay at all. Get what I mean?

2) Also, with the tickets so cheap, more people would actually go to the movies because it isn't really hurting their wallets.

Thoughts? Please feel free to chip in any of your ideas. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[directorik]

1) People would stop watching movies for free through piracy. I'd rather have a couple of people watch my movies and pay something, rather than them not pay at all. Get what I mean?

Do you believe that would happen? People will download a film for
free because a movie ticket is $10, but they will pay $5 rather then
get it for free. Why pay even one dollar when you can get it for free?
What would the price point be? Somewhere between $5 and $1 that
make marketing and production costs worth it for the filmmaker and
the paying audience.

Of course this depends on the film and the filmmaker. You are asking
about ticket prices. You and I and all of here in indietalk are not getting
our movies into the theaters so I assume your question isn't about
having a couple of people pay to watch your (or my) movie, but people
who go to the movie theaters.

2) Also, with the tickets so cheap, more people would actually go to the movies because it isn't really hurting their wallets.

Most people don’t go to the movies because they don’t like the environment
- people talking, people making noise eating, driving to and from the theater,
parking costs...

Again, what is the price point you feel will get people out of the house and
into the theater? What is "so cheap"?

 

[Phil_UK]

Ohh, I can't complain. My local cinema has a month pass for 23 euros. Pay that and see as many films as you want to in a month!

 

[MetalRenard]

Phil that's a really cool deal. Has it got a big screen and good sound too? That'd be awesome.

Personally, I only go to the cinema once every 3 months, partly because of prices, partly because I'm signed up to Netflix. ^^

 

[8salacious9]

I would like to share my view:

ticket prices in the cinema are too expensive, the average price is about £8, well thats not bad you think, yeah until you walk further in and see the price of popcorn and drink, taking the total for one person to watch a movie in the CINEMATIC experience as i like to call it around £16-8, the cost of a DVD/Blu-ray when newly released £10-15 usually, now you can of course pirate it for free, but with that comes lots of cons, people standing up in the picture, the picture quality is horrendous although i have seen some that looked really good, the sound is like listening to a phone call through water.

what should happen here? well to be honest il only go cinema if its a film that im dying to watch, which in the case of this year was only once and that was only for the dark knight rises (love that film, how much did i pay? well i paid 2 tickets with an over 18's only viewing which was an extra £1 each, that cost was £16, when we got to the cinema we bought one big popcorn and a large drink, total cost including ticket was £24.

now is £24 for a cinematic experience worth the price? no it certainly isnt because its not a price that an average person can afford.

i say either lower the cost of popcorn and drink to come into line with the expensive ticket cost, or lower the ticket price to about £5-6.

i have to say in the uk mobile phone companies often do deals for being with them, for example orange wednesdays i believe is 2 for 1 and o2 has a free cinema ticket thing.

there are also cinemas in the uk that offer a monthly pass which is actually not bad however the price i feel doesnt reflect the overall experience.

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

I rarely go to the theater - unless it's something special, like Avengers or Skyfall. I have a projection setup at home that beats the pants off the mall experience.

I might go more often if tickets were around $1.00, but that's not going to happen.

I figure, why pay $10.00 to see a movie in the theater, when I can own the Blu Ray for about the same price.

On a more controversial note, I do not believe the hype about piracy cutting into studios' profits. Not in the least. I don't believe for a second the claims that piracy killed Wolverine, for example. If it's a good (entertaining) movie, people will go, and go repeatedly.

When I want to own a movie, I will buy it. When I'm just curious about a movie, I might download it to sample it (or find it streaming somewhere), and THEN - if I like it - buy it to get the best experience. (I own many hundreds of official DVDs and Blu Rays).

For up-and-coming musicians and filmmakers, distributing a free (perhaps lower-quality) digital version of a product is a great way to get your name out there.

That's my opinion, and I know there are many who would argue otherwise.

I know someone's going to ask - would I make my own feature film available for free online? The answer is yes, I would - in a deliberate, thoughtful way. Up-and-comers need to do absolutely everything they can to lower the barrier to entry for new fans. Make the movie available for free, then offer an HD version for a small fee, or perhaps a Blu Ray. Maybe throw in some other perks, like access to the filmmakers in a forum.

Once you've amassed an audience, you can be creative about how to make money from your faithful followers.

Back to the original point, though, I would happily pay more to see a movie in the theater if the experience were less like navigating an airport and more like, well, going to the theater. (See Alamo Drafthouse for an example of a GREAT theater-going experience.)

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

1) People would stop watching movies for free through piracy. I'd rather have a couple of people watch my movies and pay something, rather than them not pay at all. Get what I mean?

I think there's a common misconception that 'cost' is a continuum starting at zero and going up from there. Unfortunately it's not - there's a huge gulf between 'no cost' and 'any cost'. Once someone has made the decision to spend their money - any amount of money - on your product then the specific cost is far less important. $1, $5, $10, etc are all within a close enough range that someone who has decided to pay you won't likely change their mind over a difference of a few dollars. The hard part is getting them to cross that threshold and commit to paying anything - there's a psychological barrier there, and a difficult one to overcome.

 

[2001 Productions]

I've felt for decades that movie ticket prices should vary depending on the film being screened. If you buy a ticket to see a small band in concert, you're not going to pay the same as you would to see U2. Why should movies be any different?

If a moviegoer arrives at the theater and sees that it's going to cost $15 to see a $5 million independent drama, versus the same $15 to see a $200 million slam-bang studio extravaganza, which one is the average person going to choose?

If they varied ticket prices to reflect the cost of the film, I truly believe that everyone would win. I'll pay $15 to see a big movie on the big screen, but I can't afford to also see the smaller films at that price, so I wait for the video release. But if the ticket price for the smaller film was $4, I'd be much more likely to go see it, too. And I doubt I'm alone in that.

Multiplex theaters tend to book the bigger movies because the audiences are larger. But I very often go into a theater that only has half a dozen people in it. Say the theater kept $5 from each ticket, they made $30 on that screening. Book a $4 movie in there, and maybe they'll get 20 people to watch it, with the theater keeping $2 per ticket = $40, a 25% increase.

And the above example doesn't take into account concession sales, of which the theater keeps 100% of profits.

Granted, increased security would be required to ensure that ticket buyers don't switch theaters. I imagine you'd need a ticket taker at each door. Whether that would be a deal-breaker, I don't know.

Opinions?

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

I've felt for decades that movie ticket prices should vary depending on the film being screened. If you buy a ticket to see a small band in concert, you're not going to pay the same as you would to see U2. Why should movies be any different?

That's interesting - I think for it to work you'd have to go back to the roadshow model for special movies. It's all about perceived value.

You might go to some smaller movies and expect to pay less. But what happens when that little indie turns into a big hit - does the price go up? And pricing the "smaller" movie more cheaply may cause the film to take a hit on its perceived value as well... does this carry over to DVD/Blu Ray pricing?

And like you said - this might also require additional personnel. Interesting idea, but at first glance doesn't seem very workable.

 

[2001 Productions]

You might go to some smaller movies and expect to pay less. But what happens when that little indie turns into a big hit - does the price go up?

No. Why would it? The ticket price is based on the producers' investment in the film, not how it performs. A hit means more people will come see it, and the producer will make more money. Same way it works now.

When an indie becomes a "hit", it's all relative anyway. An indie that cost $5 million to produce, then turned around and made $100 million is considered a blockbuster. But what if the movie cost $200 million to produce, then turned around and made that same amount: $100 million? Same figure, WAY different context.

And pricing the "smaller" movie more cheaply may cause the film to take a hit on its perceived value as well... does this carry over to DVD/Blu Ray pricing?

DVD/Blu-Ray pricing has nothing to do with box office now, so why would that change in my example?

In this day and age, what a movie cost to produce versus its box office return is mainstream news. Its perceived value is largely determined by that. A lower ticket price would simply encourage more people to come and see a small film in the theater, thus increasing its perceived value.

And like you said - this might also require additional personnel. Interesting idea, but at first glance doesn't seem very workable.

I disagree. Everything is computerized now, so technically it is quite feasible. Distributors and exhibitors would have to agree on ticket prices and percentages, but both have the same goal so I doubt this would require much compromise for either party.

Yes, a 10-plex would require 10 minumum-wagers to man the doors. I think the additional revenue would more than cover the cost, but what do I know?

 

[kova.lee]

1) People would stop watching movies for free through piracy. I'd rather have a couple of people watch my movies and pay something, rather than them not pay at all. Get what I mean?

A lot of people (*coughMPAAcough*) say this on the assumption that people will either pay something or pay nothing for a movie without taking into account the various factors. Obviously, there is a subset of people who will NEVER pay for a movie no matter what - these are the people who would sneak in through back doors in theaters and whatnot. You could feasibly show the movie for free and they still wouldn't go b/c they'd complain about the gas price that it takes to get there. Thus, these people will never represent a sale, no matter what.

But either way, remember the first category of people b/c they need to be factored into the equation - they're part of the demand but they'll never supply their money.

2) Also, with the tickets so cheap, more people would actually go to the movies because it isn't really hurting their wallets.

There are more factors than just price. People need to feel that they're getting value for what they pay.

For example, I could careless if the local theater shows the latest Adam Sandler movie for $1 b/c I'd still feel like it's a dollar wasted (not to mention the 90-120 minutes of my life wasted that I could've spent doing other things). On the other hand, I GLADLY shell out the premium for an IMAX showing of the latest Chris Nolan movie b/c I know that every dollar that I spent will be worth it.

Thus, it's not just about low ticket prices. It's about making people feel like they've spent their money well, that either the directors have told a worthwhile story and/or that the audience is taking part in a cultural phenomenon (Avengers, Batman, Inception, etc.).

Speaking of cultural phenomenon, there's also the experience of going to a theater, which ranged from "fine" to "why the heck would I want to?" I've been fortunate enough that my most annoying theater experience was this idiot mother who brought her baby into the theater (forgot what movie it was) and halfway through, during a dramatic scene, the thing started crying and wouldn't shut up. After a couple minutes of the thing whining, someone in the audience got up and ordered the lady out, to much applause from the audience.

Aside from that, most of my theater experiences have been pleasant, which seems to be the opposite of apparently everyone else on the Internet. A $3 or $4 ticket wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on if the theater-going experience is unpleasant such that the audience can't enjoy the movie, which is why I hear a lot of people opting to just watch it at home where they don't have to deal with people.

Thus, the bottom line is that blaming high ticket prices doesn't take into account various other factors that come in play as to how the consumer's money is spent.

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

@2001: Who knows? Might be an interesting experiment.

Speaking for myself, if I paid, say, $5.00 to see a small indie, and then was asked to pay $10.00 for the latest piece of Hollywood crap, it would make me resent the $10.00 all the more.

The system is so entrenched as it is, now, though - I don't know how you could even implement it. Theaters pay a certain amount for rentals, and they have to recoup it however they can (e.g., through concession sales). It would be up to the distributor, then, to rent out the film cheaply enough to allow for such scalable pricing. Basically, you're asking a distributor to willingly accept less money than they could potentially get, or a theater to take a risk by overpaying for a film and charging less than they normally would.

 

[2001 Productions]

Speaking for myself, if I paid, say, $5.00 to see a small indie, and then was asked to pay $10.00 for the latest piece of Hollywood crap, it would make me resent the $10.00 all the more.

The system is so entrenched as it is, now, though - I don't know how you could even implement it. Theaters pay a certain amount for rentals, and they have to recoup it however they can (e.g., through concession sales). It would be up to the distributor, then, to rent out the film cheaply enough to allow for such scalable pricing. Basically, you're asking a distributor to willingly accept less money than they could potentially get, or for a theater to take a risk by overpaying for a film and charging less than they normally would.

True enough. It would require someone to think outside the box -- admittedly a tall order.

But distributors will do whatever they think will make them the most money. If they can sell a million tickets to a small film and make, say, $5 per ticket, versus selling 5 million tickets and making $2 per ticket, which is the better route?

I can only speak for myself: If smaller movies were cheaper, I would go see many more of them, even if it meant I wound up spending more in the long run. But maybe that's just me.

 

[mus]

the only good thing about living in a small, boring town... the theater costs are only $4

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

But distributors will do whatever they think will make them the most money. If they can sell a million tickets to a small film and make, say, $5 per ticket, versus selling 5 million tickets and making $2 per ticket, which is the better route?

The second option is clearly better - but the problem is we're talking frictionless elephants now. The question isn't just one of how much to charge, but also how many people you can reasonably expect to get into the theater. It costs money to reach people so that they even have any awareness of your film, it costs even more to convince a significant number of people to come see it regardless of ticket price.

So if the success of your model depends on getting more people in to the theater then you need to account for the additional costs, time and effort required to do that.

You also need to take into account that there's a finite number of potential audience members, and each of them has a finite amount of time available. Most people go to the theater once a month or less, and just dropping prices won't change that significantly because people aren't just sitting around doing nothing waiting until they can afford to go to their next film. Theatrical films have to compete for time with home video, television, video games, the internet, bars, restaurants, parties, kids, etc. The cost of the ticket isn't the only factor to the theatergoer - the cost of their time is fairly significant, because no matter how much or little money they've got they'll never have more time.

So maybe you could realistically double the number of theatergoers by halving the price - but it's going to cost you more to do so, and the costs are only going to increase further as you have to fight harder and harder for the remaining amount of time people have left - it's a losing battle of diminishing returns. I honestly think the better model would be to go the other way - charge more for a premium experience.

 

[2001 Productions]

It costs money to reach people so that they even have any awareness of your film, it costs even more to convince a significant number of people to come see it regardless of ticket price.

So if the success of your model depends on getting more people in to the theater then you need to account for the additional costs, time and effort required to do that.

I disagree with this, to the extent that the films are already being marketed to the largest possible audience, as determined by the distributor. Distributors don't send films out into the marketplace with the expectation of losing money -- at least I don't think they do. They want as many people to come as possible. Then, as a film's popularity increases or decreases, the amount of marketing follows suit. I see tons of marketing for films that make me say, "Man, I'd love to see that, but I need to save my money for The Hobbit (or whatever), so I'll wait for video."

You also need to take into account that there's a finite number of potential audience members, and each of them has a finite amount of time available. Most people go to the theater once a month or less, and just dropping prices won't change that significantly because people aren't just sitting around doing nothing waiting until they can afford to go to their next film. Theatrical films have to compete for time with home video, television, video games, the internet, bars, restaurants, parties, kids, etc. The cost of the ticket isn't the only factor to the theatergoer - the cost of their time is fairly significant, because no matter how much or little money they've got they'll never have more time.

I can't argue with this because you could very well be right. As I stated above, I can only speak for myself. I would increase my own theater attendance substantially if prices were lower for smaller films. But if I'm atypical, then so be it. I don't realistically see my idea being implemented anyway.

 

[RyanSult]

The price of tickets, popcorn, etc are all set the same way anything is priced. They are set using market price equilibrium (I believe is the name of what I'm thinking of) in which economists make graphs of the supply and demand for the product, supply lines go up and to the right and demand lines go down and to the right, where these lines meet on a graph is your equilibrium price. the price at which the supply and demand are balanced, if the prices are not at this point there will be a shortage of supply (too many tickets sold, not enough seats, shortage) or a surplus (ticket price too high, don't sell enough tickets, extra seats in the theater) now the price of tickets is probably combined with snacks sales using ratios of people that buy them and whatnot to get the correct price on snacks. I'm sure that a few circumstances that only apply to places with ticket sales also effect the price but probably not by much. I don't think the prices have to do with getting the most people in seats as possible but maximizing the profitability of the tickets they do sale, and the quality of the movie being shown has probably zero impact on the price.

 

[jax_rox]

In Australia, our movie ticket prices start at $16 (for an adult, 14 for Student/Concession) and can easily head up to $19 for a 3D movie ($18+ $1ea. for a pair of 3D glasses).

Then Candy Bar prices are $20 per combo (popcorn, 2 drinks, 2 ice creams), with a simple box of popcorn costing ~$8.

I understand that theatres only really make money from Candy Bar, but it can easily become a $60 trip to the movies for two adults to see a 3D movie and get a basic combo from the Candy Bar.
And the worst part is: most theatres these days don't care about what happens after you enter the theatre. I think that is the biggest thing.

IMO, people will always go to the theatre. Mostly for the big screen (who's got a 2k or 4k projector at home?) and the sound and just the experience of it. But, in general, I find people tend to go to the cinema for big budget blockbuster films, and kids films. All the films in the middle barely get anyone go see them because they're either not released during holidays, or the ticket price is too expensive to justify paying $16/ticket + candy bar for a film you don't know all that much about. You can quite easily wait a month or two and get the BluRay for the same price. Or even rent an HD version from the iTunes store for 1/4 of the price.

The issue with the cinema as it is, is that you're paying too much for what you get. I enter the cinema and find they're playing the wrong movie, or that they're playing the 3D version of the 2D movie I paid to see, and of course didn't spend the extra $1 for 3D glasses because, well. I was planning to see a 2D movie.
You have staff who only do a half-hearted job of cleaning the cinema, you have no quality control in the actual theatre itself. I've been to see movies that are just slightly out of focus until you say something to the staff who then go and fix it (this actually happens a hell of a lot), I've seen movies where the sound is inaudible until you mention it to the staff. I've seen movies that have been too dark because settings for 3D movies have been left on for 2D movies. And I've seen of course, the playing of a 3D version of the 2D movie I was going to see.

If ticket prices were $10, I'd certainly see more films, but I'd be happy to see more films if the staff at the cinema actually gave a damn about what they were doing.

On the issue of pirates, I think the majority of pirates do not plan on paying to see the movie anyway, and I think if you could somehow eradicate all options for piracy, most pirates would not suddenly go see 100 movies a week. They may see the blockbuster films they love that they paid to see on a big screen with full sound while they were pirating, but the majority of films they wouldn't go see - in fact, if you look at it in a different way, pirating is almost opening up your movie to an audience that may have otherwise not seen it at all.

 

[2001 Productions]

Wow, jax! Sorry to hear about the sad state of theaters in Melbourne!

In my little town of 10,000 we have an 8-screen multiplex with state-of-the-art projection and sound. The auditoriums are clean and comfortable. The only negative is the occasional batch of teenage loudmouths jabbering through the picture, but the theater gives you free passes if you decide to leave, no questions asked.

Oh, and glasses are included in the price of a 3D screening.

 

[Zensteve]

Dang, are all theaters like that near you, Jax, or do you keep returning to the same terrible one?

I go almost exclusively to the local 2nd-run dollar theater. 8 Screens, all digital projection, 4 of them with 3D projectors, very comfy seats and lots of free parking. I've paid full price at a regular theater two times in the past several years - once for Tron II and the other for Dredd.

I average one film a week, with occasional rampages of up to three. There's no way I'd do that if I had to foot a first-run full-price ticket. At my price I can afford to even see terrible movies, and not get angry about the wasted bux (Apollo 18 was pushing it, though )

If they can sell a million tickets to a small film and make, say, $5 per ticket, versus selling 5 million tickets and making $2 per ticket, which is the better route?

Edit: ignore my math.