If price is not a factor, how do you explain the popularity of the LivingSocial deal that offered two movie tickets for $9. It was the third highest selling daily deal of all time- it sold one million tickets in 48 hours. Obviously price is driving decision to some extent.
Why movie tickets should be cheaper?!
- Thread starter justinisfilming
- Start date
If price is not a factor, how do you explain the popularity of the LivingSocial deal that offered two movie tickets for $9. It was the third highest selling daily deal of all time- it sold one million tickets in 48 hours. Obviously price is driving decision to some extent.
What it seems most people are saying is it isn’t the cost of the ticket that
is the issue, it’s the cost of other things (popcorn and candy), the experience
in the theater and the product. It seems most who have posted will spend
the money for a big, something special movie. And that if the movie ticket
price was lower it would bring them to see a movie they didn't have much
desire to see.
Here in Los Angeles the premium theaters a popping up all over and are
doing great business. The prices are higher but so is the value. Clean
theaters, big, comfortable clean seats, excellent picture and audio, reserved
seating, gourmet eats including popcorn and premium candy.
From reading most of the comments here lowering the ticket price would
not make much of a difference. That seems to prove the argument that
ticket prices should not be cheaper.
I would love to read your persuasive speech on why they should be lower
when you finish it.
I bought it. Twice. Went to see two movies I otherwise would not have paid to see in a theater.
I see a fair number of films in the theater. I prefer to go during off hours and after the movie has been out for a little while because I don't like people. It's kinda weird that I still go to theaters because my home theater setup has a digital 3D 4k projector and 7.2 surround sound. I can show big screen 3D movies in my house without having to deal with other people. There is just something intangible about seeing a film in a proper theater setting. There is a premium theater here in New Orleans that has 4 star food, booze, big comfy leather recliners, seat side service, reserved seating, and does not allow anyone under the age of 18 into the theater. I go there a lot. The price isn't really a factor for me, it's all about the experience. If I attend the local megaplex with hundreds of screaming morons, any cost is too high. I also resent the hell out of paying $6.00 for $0.34 worth of Coke and $8.00 for $0.11 worth of popcorn. There is a limit to the amount of unabashed greed that I will tolerate without proper recompense. I wish my local theaters would show well made indie films for a reduced cost. If they did, I would see more of them (I view very few).
I don't understand all the griping, to be honest. Restaurants, bars, professional sporting events, concerts, golf, you name it -- shit be expensive!
Okay, so popcorn and a Coke is gonna run ten bucks at most multiplexes. Get over it. Have you never eaten in a restaurant? They don't charge the same price as a grocery store. They have a staff they need to pay, and they're sitting on expensive real estate. If it really bothers you, learn to sneak shit in, or wait until it's at the 2nd-run theater. Why is this an issue?
Where else can you be entertained, for two hours, for ten bucks?
Okay, so popcorn and a Coke is gonna run ten bucks at most multiplexes. Get over it. Have you never eaten in a restaurant? They don't charge the same price as a grocery store. They have a staff they need to pay, and they're sitting on expensive real estate. If it really bothers you, learn to sneak shit in, or wait until it's at the 2nd-run theater. Why is this an issue?
Where else can you be entertained, for two hours, for ten bucks?
I don't object to anyone turning a profit. Quite to the contrary, I'm usually the first one championing a business's right to make money. I have a hard time arguing for a theater charging an 8000% markup on popcorn.
The theater gets very little of the ticket sales. Charging an arm and a leg for popcorn is how they stay afloat.
Also, you can just not buy the popcorn.
My local rollerskating rink is $3.00 an hour.
Oh, this was probably a rhetorical question.
House Of Blues only charges $15-$25 for most concert tickets. I get to see two or three bands playing for upwards of four hours or so.
I want that! Haha.
Oh, if only... I stockpile 3D glasses in my car so I don't have to buy a new pair each and every time I go to the movies..
All charge similarly, and in fact the better ones often charge a little more. Then you've also got Gold Class which provide reclining chairs and food delivered to your seat which is $60+/ticket, plus overpriced food and drink...Dang, are all theaters like that near you, Jax, or do you keep returning to the same terrible one?
Then you've got anywhere from $10+ just to park at any slightly better cinema...
Classy way to see a movie though
Almost all have similar quality control issues, even the higher priced ones, and it's gotten worse now that everything's going digital because the cinemas see no need to train people to be projectionists and so there's simply whoever's around pushing a button, rather than setting things up and making sure things run smoothly. This is why I fear the rumours of hubbing all playout from an interstate location - because if something goes wrong in the middle (or start of) a movie, does that mean the cinema workers have to spend 10 minutes on hold to tech support to even get to speak to someone about changing something...?
Interestingly, the smaller independent theatres tend to be better run, with better and much more knowledgable staff. Quite a few still run 35mm print projection and in general you get a better atmosphere and better movie experience.
I hate paying full price for an average cinema experience. Often times, I'd be content simply watching it on my HD plasma at home with my sound setup - an HD rental from iTunes costs $4-$7, and microwave popcorn costs maybe $3.
If prices were lower, I'd see many more movies at the theatre. If they picked up their game, I'd at least not feel like I'm being ripped off each and every time.
I'd even spend a lot of money at 2nd-run theatres if we had them. Unfortunately, if you live in any kind of suburbia, it's full price or nothing. The local cinemas are part of the major cinema chains, but are just run worse. So they still charge you full price, but the facilities aren't as good, the screens aren't as big, the staff aren't as helpful and you always get the feeling like you may pick up an STI if you sit in any of the back three rows..
I think, personally, I'd see a lot more films if the price was cheaper. If it was the same, but the QoS was higher, I'd see a few more.
If we had Arclight cinemas here, I'd be happy to pay $16 to see a movie there.
I completely agree. However, if I'm at a restaurant that costs 10x more than a grocery store, I want 10x the experience. I don't want you to force me to eat in the grocery store, but still make me pay 10x as much to eat there.
We don't have 2nd run theatres here
If we did, they be seeing a lot of my business. I have less issue with the cost, and more issue with the whole attitude and way things are run.
At home?
I also wonder if prices won't be getting worse, apart from inflation and whatever, because of what sounds like will be escalating costs for theaters to maintain and keep up-to-date the digital projection they've bought (been duped?) into and are now stuck with. If those stories and projections are true, I suppose they'll have to pass the costs on down.
The switch over to Digital Projection was subsidized by the major studios, with a virtual print fee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Print_Fee
They essentially paid the same price they would have paid for a film print ($2500 or so), with nearly all of it going to directly to the exhibitors to cover the digital projectors. The learn term deal is to basically cover the costs up to a certain point because in the long run it will significantly reduce the costs to the distributors. You could pop out a 3500 screen release for about $100k now, for prints anyway; marketing is still a huge budget.
Maintenance on digital projectors is no more than free firmware updates... no more expensive to manage than a digital camera.
Last edited:
Who and how would you determine how much a company/filmmaker has put into a movie when all of the figures are bogus. I could say that I spent $1 million on a feature to get a slighter higher ticket price than a $300,000 indie film. You'd see major inflation I'm guessing because a movie theater isn't going to invest time & money into assessing the true value of your movie before hand.
I've been talking with people on this topic for a while.
I totally agree that prices in cinemas need to change, but it's not as simple as a direct ratio to the budget of a film. Just like other sales items, the price needs to be a direct relationship to what people are willing to pay. Where it gets a little tricky is when you add the premium experiences (gold class, 3d etc) into the mix.
When I personally go to the cinema I look at value for money. With movie tickets in my area costing near on $20 each it makes you think a little before going to the cinema for each and every movie. While I don't disagree some movies are worth that price tag, most though are not. There are movies that I'd be happy to pay half to quarter price. Especially when I prefer to see movies in the off peak times (day times during week days).
On a tangent, when you're talking about grouping consumers for spending patterns, there's usually 2 primary demographics. Those with a high disposable income and those without. Those with a high level of disposable income (they're usually time poor) usually don't worry too much about the price of goods, but their time is important, so they're often willing to pay extra for that better experience. Those without a lower level of disposable income (the majority of the population) have to make choices on what they're going to spend their entertainment on. They are often going to look for the biggest bang for the buck thus a shift in pricing would work better on them.
On another hand.... there are people who have low disposable income and low spare time. These are the hardest to cater for.
Another factor to consider. Most people like to see the biggest, best movies. These are the movies that lots of people are going to watch regardless of the price. Good luck in convincing the studios for ticket prices for these to go lower. For them it's discounting without a point.
What cinemas need is different price points for different movies. Not each movie is worth the same amount for me. I'm sure it's the same for others too. Cinemas want bums in seats. While not everyone buys at the candy bar, enough do and that's where they make the majority of their profits.
I'm not sure how anyone would justify that the movie going experience has the same value for The Avengers as it did for Total Recall 2012. If I saw Total Recall 2012 at full price, I would have felt ripped off compared to the value I got from watching The Avengers. Not all movies are created equally.
I totally agree that prices in cinemas need to change, but it's not as simple as a direct ratio to the budget of a film. Just like other sales items, the price needs to be a direct relationship to what people are willing to pay. Where it gets a little tricky is when you add the premium experiences (gold class, 3d etc) into the mix.
When I personally go to the cinema I look at value for money. With movie tickets in my area costing near on $20 each it makes you think a little before going to the cinema for each and every movie. While I don't disagree some movies are worth that price tag, most though are not. There are movies that I'd be happy to pay half to quarter price. Especially when I prefer to see movies in the off peak times (day times during week days).
On a tangent, when you're talking about grouping consumers for spending patterns, there's usually 2 primary demographics. Those with a high disposable income and those without. Those with a high level of disposable income (they're usually time poor) usually don't worry too much about the price of goods, but their time is important, so they're often willing to pay extra for that better experience. Those without a lower level of disposable income (the majority of the population) have to make choices on what they're going to spend their entertainment on. They are often going to look for the biggest bang for the buck thus a shift in pricing would work better on them.
On another hand.... there are people who have low disposable income and low spare time. These are the hardest to cater for.
Another factor to consider. Most people like to see the biggest, best movies. These are the movies that lots of people are going to watch regardless of the price. Good luck in convincing the studios for ticket prices for these to go lower. For them it's discounting without a point.
What cinemas need is different price points for different movies. Not each movie is worth the same amount for me. I'm sure it's the same for others too. Cinemas want bums in seats. While not everyone buys at the candy bar, enough do and that's where they make the majority of their profits.
I'm not sure how anyone would justify that the movie going experience has the same value for The Avengers as it did for Total Recall 2012. If I saw Total Recall 2012 at full price, I would have felt ripped off compared to the value I got from watching The Avengers. Not all movies are created equally.
Obviously I haven't made my position clear.
The distributors and exhibitors would collaborate to determine the optimum ticket price for a movie. If a distributor of a small movie still wanted to charge $15 admission, then that would be their right.
My contention is that if the distributor of the $5 million movie only charged $4 admission, their audience might increase substantially, netting them a greater return in the long run.
While marketing largely determines a movie's appeal on opening weekend, afterward it becomes a matter of word-of-mouth. A lower ticket price would likely attract more audience members, particularly older ones (like me) who aren't necessarily interested in seeing Transformers 4, but would gladly pay $4 to see a small, smart drama in a nice theater. A larger audience means more word-of-mouth, which - assuming the response is positive - means higher attendance down the road.
Again, this is all academic. As others have stated, the status quo is pretty well entrenched, and to implement such a change probably entails more risk than any distributor is willing to take.
What is your price point?
Here in the States the national average ticket price is $7.93. $12.87 in
Australia. That's US$13.31. Minimum wage in the states is almost exactly
the same - $7.82. So seeing a 2 hour movie is around $4.00 per hour or
about half the US minimum wage. In general the theater sees less than
half that - so roughly $3.75 per ticket in the States. For a couple of weeks,
four maybe five screenings, a house will have 200 to 500 people. For those
first two weeks there will be 25 showings with fewer than 150 people in
the house. After that it's even less for all 35 screenings. So if the ticket price
was half what it is now ($3.96) would twice as many go to the theaters?
As a capitalist I have to believe that some theater owners have tried that
over the decades of motion picture exhibition. I know in the late '80's early
'90's the Landmark Theaters chain tried it here in Los Angeles. They lasted
about 6 years losing money until they readjusted and became a premium
chain.
Okay, you, personally, think you would see a lot more films if the price were
lower. Now take that out of the personal and spread it out to the people you
know - non filmmaker friends and family. Do you believe they would see more
movies in the theater if the price was lower? Would they tend to take more
chances and see smaller, independent films or just more "big" films?
This is why simply lowering ticket prices across the board will not work.
Instead, charge $4 to see The Paperboy ($12.5 million budget), and $15 to see Skyfall ($200 million budget). I'd wager that not a single person who wanted to see Skyfall would elect to see The Paperboy instead because it's cheaper. But I'd be willing to bet that more of them would go see The Paperboy too, and maybe some who can't afford $15 would go see the cheaper movie.
Maybe I live in a fool's paradise.
Prices are clearly a lot higher in Australia than the US, I wonder what the reason is - current exchange rates are nearly 1:1 so it seems to just be your local theaters/distributors charging a premium.
I live in SF so there's a lot of choice around here, but even looking purely at the large chains (AMC & Cinemark) there is a wide range of prices I can pay for mainstream films. First screening of each film that day is $6, Costco has unrestricted discount tickets for $7.50 each (bought by the pair), matinee is $8.50, afternoon is $9.50, evening is $10.75 - 11.50. 3D runs $14.50-15.50, XD is $14.75 and IMAX is $16.50. The premium chain (Sundance) charges about $11 - $15 per ticket for screenings limited to 21+ (they have a bar) with reserved seating.
So the theaters seem to have covered most of the price points that are likely to bring people in - I can't imagine dropping below the lowest current price ($6/ticket) would have enough impact to change things much. The fact that in a city this big, with so many theaters, all of the cheaper second-run theaters have closed down (or been renovated and turned into first-run) tells me there just isn't a high enough volume of additional theatergoers to make money with that model.
I personally just tend to stock up on tickets from Costco, so my average price is pretty similar to the national average Rik quoted. I do that though because there's no point in paying more for the same thing if I don't have to, not because the cheaper price allows me to go more often.
The number of films I go see is generally determined by the films currently playing and the free time I have rather than the price. Sometimes weeks go by where I consider going to a movie but there just aren't any movies I really want to see - during those times it wouldn't matter if the films were free, they just aren't worth my time. Other times I get so busy with work or other activities that I just don't have the time to go out to a theater - again price isn't a factor there. There are times where work is slow and money is tight, and during those times I'm more likely to go for the cheapest option (first show of the day). I still tend to catch most of the big films I want to see during those periods though because $12 for two people is cheaper than most activities I'd go out to do for an afternoon. I rarely ever buy popcorn or other snacks at the theater - personally if I'm going to spend that much on food I'd rather eat before or after the film at a local restaurant.
I realize I'm not a 'typical' audience member though - the number I've seen quoted is somewhere around 6 movies/year on average. I've got well over 600 ticket stubs going back to the late 90's, when I first started actively saving them - works out to 40+ films a year. I think the average is a little misleading though, there's probably a smaller percentage who go see a lot of films each year and generate most of the theatrical revenues, offset by a very large number who only go once or twice a year. You might be able to get that larger number of people to double their attendance - another film or two each year - with lower prices. For the people like me though who already go frequently it wouldn't work - cut the prices in half and you'd have to get me in the theater 80 times a year just to break even!
I understood the whole point of this discussion was to look at ways to increase consumption, not convert it into smaller spending amounts. If someone is determined to see James Bond, they're going to see James Bond. Though, what might happen, when you're there seeing James Bond, you see another movie that caught your interest that you may see after your chosen movie or come back at a later time.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make, not every movie is created equal, just like every car isn't created equal, though the price of movies is inelastic based more on where or when you watch rather than what you watch. Why do we accept that an ordinary movie is worth the same as a flagpole movie.
I believe a variable pricing structure will help the little guy and allow for more creativity in movies instead of the cinema being massively reliant on the mega hit movies.
If I could find a cinema within a two hour drive from a major city centre, I'd gladly go there. IMO, looking at the Screen Australia average prices can give a bit of a false outlook, especially when you consider the highest ticket prices for 2011 were $28!
You've got a mix of Concession, Kids, Seniors discount etc. tickets, plus the slightly lower ticket prices in country independent cinemas lowering the figure. Kids and teenagers/students (concessions) tend to dominate theatre admission, especially during the school holidays. So, there's a lot more to it than just 'average ticket price'. If you think that Kids and concessions tend to dominate at the cinema, then you need to look at the overall picture of how many kids or family films were released in comparison to the number of MA15+ or R rated films that you can't take a child to see.. etc. etc.
The two major cinema chains charge $16 for an Adult ticket to a 2D movie, and $18 for a 3D movie. Even the smaller, more regional chains are charging $17.50 for an Adult ticket for a 2D movie.
If I lived in a country town and could go see a movie for $10 or $12, or if I was a child and could get a $12 admission price, I'd see many, but I don't and don't plan to move to a regional town, especially for the sole purpose of seeing cheaper movies. I am also not a child...
I don't even live in expensive inner city, just middle-class inner suburbia.
Let's take out the pricing structure. Let's make tickets $11 across the boards. Kids, adults, seniors, students, whatever. I think that's when you start to see many more people go to the cinema. Kids and seniors and students are all getting $12 tickets anyway, so all you're really doing is attracting more adults to the cinema.
It makes it that little bit easier for mum or dad to go along with the kids to see the film, or that little bit easier to justify a ~$20 date to the movies, rather than a $32-$35 date to the movies etc. etc.
Though, I don't think the cinemas are in any real rush to bring more people in, as their prices stay the same..
We get very few small independent movies shown at our theatres anyway, so...
Looking at it from the other side - why should a lower budget movie that could be just as good as Skyfall suffer lower profit and lower revenue simply because it had a lower budget?
You seem to be looking at it from the point of view of an indie filmmaker. 'I want more people to see my film, but if they have to choose between it and Skyfall, of course they're going to see Skyfall - let's lower the ticket price to entice them'
Exhibitors don't care about your movie. They don't care about any movie. They just want to make money. Distributors are the same to an extent, and if they're not smart enough to release your movie on a weekend that isn't the same weekend that Skyfall opens, then they're probably not a great distributor.
Also keep in mind that people tend to associate price with quality. That's why you have brand names that can charge 4x as much as unknowns for the same product.
I think if you lowered the price of independent movies drastically, less people would see them because they would associate a low cost with a low quality of movie, it would essentially devalue a movie before someone even has the chance to see it.
Not to mention that the cinemas would have no incentive to do so anyway, as they'd get less than a dollar out of a $4 movie ticket, and quite probably no more people through, or perhaps only a few more people through.
From a business perspective it makes no sense.