Movie Theater Research Central

Co-ops and Numbers

2006-11-26T03:34:00.000-08:00

So a quick update -- over the last three months, I have: quit my job at Google, Spent approximately 1.25 months on vacation in Europe, moved to Hawaii, interned with the Hawaii International Film Festival, started working on a construction site as a laborer, and finally done the thing I came here to do... I've worked two nights as an employee of a real, live, multiplex.

The Ko'olau 10, to be exact.

And for a while, I thought, I'd be too busy with my 3 jobs to contribute anything meaningful to my blog of blogs. BUT after two nights at the job I've always wanted, I had to post about two things I was thinking about.

1.) I think movie theaters would support a FANTASTIC co-op variant. Maybe.

I've probably mentioned the idea of a co-op movie theater before, because it tends agree with my liberal communist slant :). But my current vision of it is really just an incremental change to the current system that would benefit two parties that really have a stake in the movie theater's success.

So, after 2 days of working in the concessions booth, I have to say, I'm blown away by the beauty of the efficiency machine that sits behind the counter. There's never any downtime, there's always cleaning, sweeping or restocking to be done. When the rush comes, people are working in super-adjustable, minimal bureaucracy style to pump orders out efficiently and accurately. And the whole theater is like this. More importantly, it has to be this way, because it's the only way, the operation is able to turn a profit. Concessions have to sell. They have to sell in volume, and they have to sell for large profit margins.

As an employee of Consolidated Theaters, the benefits are a frequent movie-goer's dream (I should know). Free Movies for you and up to 3 friends and HALF off concessions!

This got me to thinking, wouldn't it be rather natural to have people that come to the movies every week, work and multiply their productivity in the amazing movie theater machine, rather than pay the marginally helpful ticket fee every week? The benefits are numerous

- it could help keep operations costs down if people could play a limited role and only receive movie benefits
- the community as a whole would have a better understanding of and relationship with the operation of the theater which, I hypothesize, would increase either loyalty or attendance
- the full time, or more permanent employees, would have more meaningful work as managers, and coordinators of the benefits-only employees, and would spend their time retuning the machine, while...
- ...spreading around the occasional tedium of operating the machine
- solutions to problems would have a natural customer service orientation since they would all be customers
-there's a growth track for both employees of the theater and patrons of the theater (who can grow into benefit-employees, and even full time employees if they want). Allowing for growth seems to be a good key for customer retention.

I actually came across this idea while discussing the Hawaii International Film Festival operation. We were talking about volunteer shortages, and it had been suggested that we take volunteers from the people standing in line. I had already thought converting patrons into volunteers would help add a new and interesting dynamic for the long time festival supporters that would also help them understand our problems.

Same kind of thing here, but in a lot of ways, even better. People like me, who go to the movies a lot, eventually start looking for ways to cut costs. One can't sustain 10 dollar movies, 10 dollar snacks 2 or three times a week on normal working class salary. So things like theater hopping, sneaking food in, etc all start becoming the only way to deepen (so to speak) and add sophisticatication one's relationship with the theater.

The only problem would be to enforce the quality standards, training, and incentives that are inherent in a paying employee contractual relationship. But that's where you can turn to the beauty of the corporate number crunching machine. If the machine is just modified to suit this purpose, I think it could easily accomodate benefits-only employees.

It might only be me, and in reality, there may be very few people who are actually interested in saving 15 dollars a week by putting in an hour at the concessions stand. But it may open up a whole new market of customers who have outgrown the theater or are just tired of paying the money and have found ways like netflix to cut costs.

Philosophically, I also think it's important for businesses to run like this. Eventually, the ones running the places, shouldn't be the ones who do it for the money, but the ones who actually like doing it. This is a good way to start bridging the gap for the movie-lovers to make their way over to becoming movie operators.

2.) In a previous blog entry, I speculated about some keeping set of statistical measurements much like the ones John Hollinger of ESPN keeps for NBA players. Well, I found out that multiplexes DO in fact keep awesome numbers like this. They record fascinating things like, the number of patrons that show up per employee hour worked, concession sales per ticket sold, etc. All rather logical things from the perspective of running an efficient business, and all rather effective in incentivizing the things that will make the theater use it's resources efficiently to turn the largest profit.

What was missing (at least from what I've seen so far) are the counterbalancing statistics. The ones that focus on the customer satisfaction side, and prevent unfettered pursuit of the profit calculating numbers. Stuff like, amount of time a customer spent waiting in line. Accuracy of order. Satisfaction with purchase, etc. With the right set of numbers, you could just start optimizing the hell out of them with the operation, and still get all the important things right. Keeping the business alive, while still fulfilling the purpose of having the service in the first place.

So much Business yet to be done!

2006-08-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

Box-office bounty stirs deals
go to original article

""Seventy-five percent of the revenue comes from the weekend," Mr. Brown said. His recent initiatives are attempts to address the question: "Is there a way with price that you can create opportunity, a new market?""

This is the question that first got me thinking about how movie theaters run. Or I suppose, it was this question's inverse/evil twin which goes something like:

"All these seats are empty on tuesday afternoons. What a waste! Wait, why am I paying full price for this?"

So, it certainly makes intuitive sense from the consumer side that there's room for a new market based on a new pricing structure.

But after a couple of years of thinking about it, I don't think it's true. There's certainly some amount of inefficiency that is inherent in most theater businesses. They only fill to capacity under very specific conditions. The rest of the time, a lot of them go unused.

But the reality is, the rest of that space can't really be used for the same kind of stuff during the rest of the day. Society revolves around a set of fairly rigid schedules, that are pretty much inflexible. The 9 to 5 workday pretty much accounts for most people's productivity time (including people who work at home). There's just this implicit contract that everyone is going to conduct productive business at this time. 6 to 10 and weekends and holidays is entertainment time. Period.

Until recently, the amount of business that was able to be done during the entertainment hours was plenty fine. But with the current competition for those entertainment hours, the dedicated entertainment spaces can't get it done anymore.

So is there something else that the big spaces can be used for during the daytime? Not that I can think of. Company meetings are not consistent enough, or there are already other resources devoted to that kind of thing within the company. It might be nice to use a public venue like a movie theater for conducting meetings or trainings, but it's just not suited for the task. Think of trying to watch a movie in a company conference room. It works, it's kinda fun for a while, but in the end, it's not that comfortable and it doesn't feel right.

Movie theaters are designed to evoke certain emotions, and productivity is not among them.

And if you think about the other entertainment spaces that are really successful right now, their hallmark is their multi use. Home Theaters that double as living rooms. PCs that double as everything.

I suspect there needs to be some push towards efficiency (if you can call it that) of this nature: making theaters that can totally transform during the day into some other useful venue.

Newsflash: Kids Bored!

2006-08-08T00:22:00.000-07:00

Fun Isn't Fun Enough for Teens
go to original article

The LA Times (two stories in the last two days) has been making a lot of noise about a recent poll that showed a couple of noteworthy things about teens. They don't particularly like to go to the movie theater. Their interest dwindles as they get older, and they like to multitask (see a nice graphical summary here)

With regard to the last bit, it seems to have brought up a little concern about the negative impact it might be having on our

Another concern for adults is multi-tasking. For the most part, experts have not looked closely at how teens' and young adults' thinking skills, especially when it comes to homework, may be affected by what one software executive has dubbed "constant partial attention."

This is very similar to the zombie epidemic that swept America when people first started trying to do their homework and watch TV at the same time 30 years ago. Or the dip in number of intellectuals suffered in the 1920s when they started selling concessions at the theaters and people would actually attempt to eat and watch movies at the same time.

It's shocking to me that this comes up so frequently. I suppose it's because people aren't familiar with the technologies that "kids these days" are using, or something, that makes everyone so panicky and... insightless. Kids are the same now, as they have been for a bazillion years: easily distracted. This part here, hits it on the head:

"It's like being in a candy store," said Gloria Mark, a UC Irvine professor who studies interactions between people and computers. "You aren't going to ignore the candy; you are going to try it all."

Kids have always been in candy stores. Before there was the internet, there were malls (just ask Kevin Smith). And TV. There have always been places to excite kids who want to try it all.

Movie theaters used to be a place where you could try it all. Adventure, travel, love, sex, fun, friends, popcorn without butter, popcorn with butter... Maybe people are reaching for an explanation that doesn't make them look stupid for not having seen this coming all along. "Kids these days are totally unpredictable! They like to multitask! Who ever heard of that?! There was no way to plan for this!"

Texting seems to be the en vogue way for theaters to get back into the mix. Mark Cuban mentioned it in his response about the rock and roll movie theater and head of MTV films David Gale mentioned it in the second LA Times article about this same poll. Presumably, this is because it's the least disruptive way for people to use their portable devices in the middle of a quiet movie theater. The fact that phone companies will charge the same 15 dollars for unlimited text messages as they do for unlimited data transfer speaks to its popularity.

I can attest to wanting to use my phone to look up actors while in a movie, or jot down notes (to myself). A screen dimmer would definitely help the cause. But, I digress. Whether or not incorporating people's texting into movie theaters will change kids' regard for theaters remains to be seen. I don't see it competing with the flexibility of sitting at home on the internet. Unless they become internet cafes... which, come to think of it, is how they do it in Bangkok.

Patent me a Donut

2006-08-08T00:16:00.000-07:00

Patent Reform Act Proposes Sweeping Changes:

"Geccie writes 'CNet is reporting that Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch have proposed sweeping changes in the patent system in the form of the Patent Reform Act of 2006. Key features are the ability to challenge (postgrant opposition) with the Senate version being somewhat broader and better than the house version.' From the article: 'Specifically, it would shift to a 'first to file' method of awarding patents, which is already used in most foreign countries, instead of the existing 'first to invent' standard, which has been criticized as complicated to prove. Such a change has already earned backing from Jon Dudas, chief of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.'

In case I haven't mentioned it, I'm an advocate of Intellectual Property (some refer to it as Information Policy) rights reform. I think the copyright and patent systems should be restructured.

My rather uniformed opinion is that the processes as they are now, do not seem to encourage and reward innovation as much as they create semi-arbitrary rules for the entities with the most power to play by.

From the perspective of how exhibitors and distributors could be more flexible, I think copyrights should be devalued and things should enter the public domain more quickly. To be honest, I don't know much about patents. Ironically, I filed for one (with a group) last quarter, and it seemed the only point was as a protection against someone trying to take advantage of the system.

In any event, none of this seems terribly relevant to the legislation that's being proposed. I just think it's generally a good thing, that this is an issue on people's minds. I had been worried that this was something that would never change.

Ding!

2006-08-04T15:10:00.000-07:00

Movie Theater's New 'Complaint' Button
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Loud talking, chair kicking and other movie-theater annoyances may soon be a thing of the past, thanks to a new device similar to the flight attendant call button on airplanes.

Moviegoers at the Regal Deer Valley Cinema complex are testing devices that will alert a theater employee when a fellow patron is behaving badly.

Instead of searching the theater lobby for an employee or fuming silently, the "guest response system" enables people to subtly tell on their neighbors from the comfort of their own seats."

I love it. It's a simple fix, that if deployed correctly, can cut right to the people who actually care about these things.

I don't know if these are intended to be installed in seats (I hope not - they'd be rife with abuse from some of the people patrons complain about) but if a patron can choose to pick one of these up at the lobby, or the door of the theater, I think it would go a long way towards silencing some of the most common complaints.

I've always felt like the people who complain about things like cell phones, the people they sit next to, and other things related to the experience are a vocal minority. And on top of that, they're complaining about a few instances that are by no means representative of the majority of moviegoing.

Now, if they have a venue for voicing their complaints (provided, they actually get dealt with), I think people will begin to speak more reasonably about it. It's the feeling of being trapped and helpless that is the biggest contributor, here, I think. If there's actually something that can be done, people might decide that it's worth it to tolerate whatever minor annoyance rather than go through the trouble of picking up a radio device at the box office.

Additionally, I like the idea of a way for people to notify the projectionist about things like sound and focus. I know that I always care about these things (but never want to leave my seat and miss part of the movie). Very sensible. What more can you ask for.

There are a lot of ways to go with this. Obviously cell phones are like a dirty word in theaters, but being able to use any device (i.e. text messaging) to notify the theater about problems would be nice. It might even be workable with proper signage around the theater lobby.

Multiplex Labs

2006-08-02T01:34:00.000-07:00

Reading Mark Cuban's response to his own call for suggestions on how to make going to the movies better has renewed my interest in an idea that I tossed around a few months back (but I don't think I ever included in my blog).

At one point, I thought this might be an interesting way to see if it would make more people go to the movies, but I don't think the difference in price will actually make it so that attendance is affected significantly.

But anyway, the idea is this: What if everything about a movie-going experience was sold at a variable price. The quality of the movie, the time, the distance you sat from the screen, the amount of time you actually sat in the movie. Even if this idea didn't serve to bring in more people, I think it would be totally interesting to see answers to the following:

-if people could pro-rate their experience would they cut their losses during movies they didn't like and try a different movie?
-if people could exercise more control over their situations, would they generally be happier?
-would the selections of the people in this setting be a truer indicator of box office success (or maybe DVD sales projections) than current metrics?
-would the pricing for movies that people walked out of halfway through eventually eat into ticket sales that are currently sunk costs when people walk in the door?

(I suppose another interesting extension of this would be to find a way to tally a box office figure minus the people who would have wanted their money back - maybe the intersection of people who watched the movie, but didn't buy the dvd, or the people who bought the dvd, but then sold it -- come to think of it, that's a really good idea. Do people track this? This could probably be done more accurately by selling DVDs along with the movie.)

Just to note, this would be very hard (but very cool) to set up. I envision a card reader in every seat that marks your personal data-card of some sort with all of the day's viewing history. This info would be useful for countless other things... I must have written about this before.

If I ever get to be in charge of a theater, the mad scientist in me just might make a showing.

Mark Cuban's Movie Theater Challenge

2006-07-26T21:57:00.000-07:00

Me and 600+ other people over the last 3 days thought it would be cool to come up with responses to the challenge Mark Cuban posted on his blog . It's hard to see how my response -- despite it's tremendously high quality :) -- won't get lost in a sea of 700 other comments, (or even to see if my response didn't just repeat suggestions that were already made), but I have faith in Mark Cuban's ability to go through all those emails. I have heard he's extremely devoted to reading Mavs fan emails, so I trust him to take this challenge seriously, and read all the suggestions.

I've included my complete response (which I clipped when I added it to the comments on the blog post) below.

Of course, there are a lot of suggestions like, cheaper movies, cheaper concessions, easier parking, better access, etc, that as a frequent moviegoer, I would love to see. However, the reality of those suggestions, are that they won't _bring_ more people into the theater. They'll just make the people that are already going happy. And those people (people like me), unfortunately, well, they're already there, so they're not who you're interested in.

My guess is that you want to figure out how to get people to come to the specialty/limited run films that landmark shows.

-So, let's start with the broad question, "what's fun about going to the movies?" Even for adults, catching a movie with all your friends is still a reason to get out of the house. Adults even have the added dimension of wanting to discuss (and maybe scream about a movie for hours after it's over, which is another need that a specialty venue can serve). It's fun to a go a movie in a group, so find a way to crank up the peer pressure. Find a way to tap into a social network (a small myspace group, for example) and let them know exactly when and where they can go to a movie. If one friend wants to go, make sure that the other friends have an easy way of knowing about it (link his ticket purchase to a broad text message/email and give him a discount for inviting more people rather than charging extra for a convenience purchase) (on a related note, I feel strongly that this service should be provided by the theater itself, since it can directly help other revenue streams and does not need extra money to stand on it's own, making it a win for everyone and cutting out an expensive third party)

-Organize special screenings a little after the fact, or when the DVD comes out. With specialty movies, the news can come around kind of late, so let people encourage each other to see the movie, and then show it when enough people commit. (booking movies on demand shouldn't (technically) be a problem since all your screens are digital)

-Boost DVD sales for a movie by screening it when the DVD comes out. piggyback on the dvd marketing, and let people try watching the movie before they commit to buying it. sort of a watch to own program (especially in light of the recent report that 80% of people that watched a movie said they were likely to buy a DVD of the same movie).

-Offer people small discounts on tickets on an irregular basis. Nothing is more irresistable than cashing in on a coupon, no matter how insignificant it is. My girlfriend found out that she can buy AMC tickets in pairs at costco for 7.50 and now she wants to go to a movie every week (as opposed to me having to drag her every week). People are totally irrational when it comes to coupons.

-Also, get people to commit to coming to the movie the instant they're interested and hear about it. If they see a trailer they like, offer them a 10 dollar ticket for 8 dollars if they put down 2 dollars up front. People will be much less likely to flake on the movie even if they forgot about what they liked about the trailer, because of that minimal investment. It doesn't even have to be a sneaky thing to do. You can just tell people straight up "we really want you to see this movie, so we're trying to get you to commit to it so you don't forget how much you want to see it" I think people will be happy they did.

-Speaking of that, give people a flawless way of keeping track of the movies they want to see, and alerts when the time comes for the movie. (this ties in great with the social networking component of this). Use pictures. People do a lot of work to make really enticing posters, and all it takes is a glance to remember why you wanted to see something (something I've learned from years of DVD shopping). Then pile on the small inexpensive incentives and remove some of the uncomfortable barriers, and it's hard to refuse.

-Put together some continuity in the films you present. Going to the movies can be addictive, so tap into that. Start with an arena rocker like Inconvenient truth, and then follow up with Who killed the electric car, (hell, you might even be able to sell people on "the Day after tomorrow" after they see Gore's movie), the book every other eco-documentary you can think of after you've gotten them hooked.

-Occassionally throw in some movies that take place locally. People are totally narcissistic when it comes to their hometowns. I went to the San Francisco International Film Festival this year, there was a line around the block for a movie about people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. And the show was at 2:00 in the afternoon on a monday.

If you're interested in the more traditional multiplex/teen demographic (some of this applies to the sophisticated art film watching adults too, though) here are a couple of other ideas. I heard somewhere that if you want to innovate, don't ask people what they want, watch what they do. I just got back from the San Diego Comiccon (for the first time) and two things were utterly clear to me. There are two things the people can't get enough of

-seeing cool secret sh*t
-seeing famous people

-The preshows that have replaced the terrible TV ads are actually a pretty good start. Now they should really step it up and throw in a random selection of totally secret trailers, and just blindside people. Remember when people bought tickets to wing commander and then walked out after they saw the trailer for Star Wars Ep 1? People still
really love that stuff (at least the geeky kids do, and if the movies are good enough, everybody will become a geek). Make a showing that's entirely, cool, secret stuff. Really high quality stuff that will not translate well to a camcorded internet jpeg. I'd even stoop so low as to stir up celebrity gossip about the movie stars in the movies you came to watch. People who watch the movies are really interested in the people in those roles. It's a fine line, because star bios can be totally boring or very trite, so it really needs to be worth the look.

-And then get the famous people to actually show up. I used to go to this theater in Palo Alto, because sometimes I'd see Stanford Basketball players there (lame, I know). But it's irresistable. Get the Mavs to hang out at the theater. Even if people don't know who Dirk Nowitzki is (god forbid) they'll know they're witnessing something special if they's standing in a popcorn line behind a 7 foot german giant. You could probably even get them to work the concessions stand. I know that stuff is usually reserved for soup kitchens and charity work, but I know every time I hear kobe was at some charity event, I find myself wishing I was really poor.

-And down a totally different path, if your goal is just to spread awareness of films that you're showing through your circuit or producing at 2929/Magnolia, I would suggest frachising out the movie theater running experience. It seems like everyone is a movie buff, and those people can make a huge difference in the distribution potential of films (ala gladwell's tipping point). Also, lots of people have amazing home theater setups that are not getting maximal use that would make great community resources. If people had a way of securing permission to screen movies theatrically with minimal hassle (and maybe alleviate security concerns for showing movies at their houses :) ), I think a lot of people would be interested in running their own little movie theaters.

Stuff I'd like to see the Bigwigs answer.

2006-07-25T17:09:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, I'm going to a fancy roundtable event about Digital Cinema. Here's the lineup:

Speakers:
Randal Kleiser, President, Randel Kleiser Productions, Inc.; Director, Grease, The Blue Lagoon, Honey I Blew Up the Kid, Lovewrecked
Bob Lambert, Sr. Vice President, Worldwide Technology Strategy The Walt Disney Company
Tim Partridge, Sr. Vice President and General Manager, Dolby Professional Division, Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Jerry Pierce, Senior Vice President, Technology, Universal Pictures
Todd Wagner, CEO, 2929 Entertainment

Moderator:
Scott Kirsner, Editor, CinemaTech; Columnist and Contributing Writer, Fast Company, The Boston Globe, The Hollywood Reporter

Dinner is a $70.00 affair, so I figure to get my money's worth, I'd like to see if the architects of the digital age of cinema have answers for any of the following questions:

-What should we expect for the smaller theaters to do?
Are they expected to participate in the digitization of movie presentation. If they can't afford to buy new equipment, at what point will they no longer be able to use film reels. Will this not be an issue because of timing?

-Do you think the exclusivity deals for certain distributors will relax at all if the copies are no longer a commodity?
I have heard of a lot of vicious legal entanglements regarding large theater chains trying to flex their booking power and engage in anticompetitive measures to make sure that nearby theaters can't show other big draw films. I understand that physical availability of films is not always the issue, but will a spirit of free availability come along with digital film distribution?

-Will there be any assistance for smaller theaters that want to convert to digital, or is the focus with larger theaters?
Is there any information about how large a percentage of the exhibition industry is made up of indpendent 1 and 2 screen operators and how the digital transition will affect them?

-Is there any thought to making films available for "semi-theatrical" release?
Digital prints make the possibility of "in between" businesses a compelling reality if the licensing standards play along. Smaller, home theater type setups could be used to make small auditoriums and come up with local exhibition businesses, but I don't think they're feasible given the current costs, and state of technology. Digital distribution has the potential to alleviate this. Are Resolution standards the issue? What are the problems (such as piracy etc) , with such a model and what can distributors now enforce because of the digital nature of the prints?

On a totally unrelated note, today I learned what a political action committee was. An important part of the political machines that seems like the "enforcer" behind nudging congressmen into the "right" political decisions (where money equals muscle).

It seems like a rather blunt instrument for my specific concerns at this point. I may be more interested in the groups that are actually structuring legislation and studying the effects of copyright law, rather than the arm that actually earns votes for it. Maybe at a later stage in my career :)

How to make money by giving Movies away!

2006-07-14T02:34:00.000-07:00

Poll Shows Moviegoers Are Big DVD Buyers

A poll of moviegoers indicates that 83 percent of those who see ten or more movies per year in theaters also "frequently" or "sometimes" buy the DVD of many of the same movies, the New York Times reported today (Monday). The study, conducted by Nielsen Entertainment, concluded that seeing movies in the theater and at home "are not mutually exclusive occurrences" and appears to boost arguments by theater owners that they would be harmed significantly if movies were released in theaters and on DVD simultaneously. Thirty-six percent said they would skip the multiplex if that were to occur.

It seems as though this survey was designed to answer a question that's been on every theater owner's mind: Will our lives be ruined if DVDs come out at the same time as new movies?

Apparently 36% of people buying DVDs and saying they'd skip the movie is a cause for alarm. And it may well be. But let's take a quick break from the red alert and think about the other things that this survey is suggesting.

86% of people that watch movies frequently buy DVDs. I doubt this is anything new, but I think this fact has got to be making studio exec's eyes roll with dollar signs. I can testify to the fact that buying DVDs is WAAAAY more addictive than going to the movies (in fact movie theaters could learn a thing or two about trophy collection and presentation, but let's focus).
1.) There's more of a selection,
2.) the value proposition is much better, you get to keep the DVDs and watch them as many times as you want -- even though you probably don't
3.) You can do it on (mostly) your own time, and always if you count online shopping (which you should)
4.) You can handle multiple movies at once -- rather than having to queue up another one while you watch the first, you can just bring both home and never watch either!
5.) You have way more to show for owning than you do for just going, you have a COLLECTION. It looks pretty on your shelf, it impresses your friends and colleagues, it gives you excuses to invite that cute girl over.

If 86% of the people who get hooked on going to the movies, are hooked on buying DVDs, imagine if MORE people went to the movies! It's no secret that DVDs are outpacing ticket sales for lots of movies, in a lot of cases DVD sales are the reason movies can make back their production costs.

So if DVDs are the cash cow, why not completely fold theatrical release into the marketing effort. Give away the screenings at theatrical release and make everyone happy!

In a perfect world, the theaters could keep selling tickets to the people who are buying them and just give away the free shows to the remainder of the people and lure all but 14% of them into buying DVDs. Price selection, I believe they call it.

Of course, the 200+ million that Pirates took in on opening day is nothing to scoff at. There's certainly money to be made there. Theaters could charge for the advance sale of tickets for really popular movies and split the revenue with distributors like they're already doing. This should make everybody happy. The people buying tickets at least know what they're buying. A really good movie might be sold out in advance the entire time it's in theatrical release. But if nobody's buying, than the free tickets should allow the theaters to recoup those costs through DVD sales. I see everybody winning.

And none of this takes into account, the extremely important fact that, more people can afford to start making movie watching a habit. And habits are what drive this business (and from a personal standpoint, they're also what makes moviewatching fun).

The share of DVD sales vs ticket sales would certainly be a useful number here, but it may not even be necessary. This model optimizes all the things that make movie going good. For the studios it makes filmmakers want to make a movie really good to get people to actually pay for it, while giving them a decent escape route if most people think it stinks. Then the theater owners can still sell popcorn to full houses, even if Hollywood is in a temporary funk. The people only have to pay for the reserve seats to the really good movies and in the mean time can try out a bunch of less popular movies that they may like and the studios will make that money back in DVD sales.

It should even reduce piracy for the crappy movies, because why pirate it when you can watch it for free?

The big selling point for this, is that I think everyone stands to make more money while really improving the movie watching experience for the people that fund it all: the moviegoers.

Crippling Consolidation

2006-05-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

At the San Francisco International Film Festival last weekend, I was mentioning to one of the ushers at the Kabuki that my favorite theater in the city was the Metreon. She was indignant at first and then she stopped herself, and said, "No, it's ok, we own them, you know". I was about to go off on how Metreon was not an AMC theater, when I realized that she was right.

What a crazy world. The AMC-Loews merger put the Metreon and Kabuki under the same roof.

It's not really up there with an alien landing or Microsoft merging with Apple or anything really strange. But it got me thinking about the nature of competition in the Movie Theater industry. Anti-competitive complaints are the core grievance smaller theater owners hurl at the bigger chains. And the more I learn about Movie theaters, the more these just seem like necessary business practices; Smart moves, that a big player makes to survive.

The truth is, competition absolutely destroys a movie theater's chances of survival. And not just the bad or outdated ones -- all theaters. If you set up two 30 screen multiplexes right next to each other, they'll both fail. Chances are there won't be enough diversity of films to fill all the screens and there won't be enough people to fill all the seats. Think of a two party election where a third candidate similar to one of the first two candidates steps in and destroys both his own and that candidate's chances of winning.

When it comes to movie theaters, spacing is paramount. One needs a multiplicity of screens to draw enough people in with contemporary film offerings. And supporting all these screens is a sizable investment of time and space. One has to be very calculating to make sure it's going to work. There's not much room for experimentation, or winging it. Too many screens too close, and business dries up for everybody.

That's why a merger like AMC Loews makes sense when you hear about it. If planning is going play a central part in success, the more control you have over the situation the better off you'll be. Now AMC and Loews can grow their businesses through expansion that won't eat into any of the businesses they've already developed.

The marriage is apparently a boon for AMC and Loews. So the question is, is it good for everyone else? Is it good in general that this is the case? Is there any way to tell?

Flat out, it's trouble. It's the kind of trouble that's less like heading for a cliff, and more like getting deeper and deeper into the woods with no chance of getting out.

I love multiplexes. But I have my complaints. And that's the first hint that something's amiss. I'd like nothing more than to devote my life to operating a theater that eliminates all the things I have a problem with. But I've been thinking about this for two years, now, and there's no way to do it. There just isn't.
Even with unlimited funds, there would be no way to do what the big chains do much better than what they're doing. There are too many inflexibles that limit your options for offerings. Initially, I just considered these things (release windows, film availability, ticket revenue sharing) as obstacles or facts of the business, but now I'm starting to see them as something far more disturbing.

I mentioned before that movie theaters no longer benefit from competition, and the parameters for the business are precisely the reason that this is the case. And without the destructive innovation of competition (which is different from the destruction that competition is currently causing) offerings never improve and the industry stagnates. It's obvious that this is bad for the consumers who will never see responses to their various complaints. But in the long run it will be bad for the Theater Industry who will squeeze everyone out and generate a lot of ill will in the process.

They'll make all the right decisions in terms of doing what they need to to stay around. Unfortunately, in order to survive, they're acting in direct conflict to an evolutionary process that would otherwise produce a much more beautiful and efficient animal.

It appears, then, that the answer is not going to come from the upper echelons of the movie theaters chains. That area will trend towards consolidation and immovable institutions. I once wrote that perhaps the movie theater industry (and maybe America) had outgrown its capitalistic roots and that an institution would be the best answer. I've changed my mind. The institutions are only appropriate where the resources are limited and it's impossible to create more of them through innovation, etc (like with land for housing). This is perhaps the case for physical reels of film and you can make a case that movie theaters would have needed this type of institutional control.

Until digital distribution of film came along. The technology itself is not groundbreaking which is why people are not falling over themselves about it. And maybe it's why no one's paying attention to the various efforts to tighten control over digital content.

Like I said, the answer to making movie theaters better is not going to come from the theater chains. In order to survive, essentially, they can only make things worse. What needs to happen is the parameters need to be reset so that the industry can reap the benefits and innovations that come out of competition. Multiplexes need to shrink and become more mobile. Regular people need to be able to start movie theaters at will. Studios need to be more free with their content libraries and independent film distribution circuits need to fill out.

Network Infrastructure and Intellectual Property and Copyright protection are at the heart of what will make the basic complaints (people are loud, cell phones, advertising, expensive concessions, etc) people have with movie theaters go away.

I mean this is America. We love free markets! We count their benefits in every possible forum. Why is the smartest thing a movie theater can do these days is attach itself to the biggest player possible rather than going head to head with them? Somebody needs to rewrite these rules.

Delayed Gratification and The Decentralized Film Festival

2006-04-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

Movies, democracy, free markets, communism, competitive sports. These are the ingredients that I turn to most when cooking the thoughts on this blog. I just read "The Tipping Point" so I think I might be trying out a new spice in contagion. Movie theaters in the news tends to stimulate me into creating new recipes. And the most recent news I've been reading has a to do with the continuing fight against "Shriking windows".

Also, I'm really intrigued by an idea that came out in my last post, about the maturation of movie going preferences.

So with all this in mind, let's think about what it would be like to be able to watch any movie you wanted (i.e. even new releases) in any venue (home or at the movies). And for the sake of argument let's marginalize the effect of the cost of these movies. Let's say that it will somehow cost you the same to watch a new movie at home, as it does to watch it in a movie theater. Similarly, watching a classic in a theater will cost you as much as watching it in your personal home theater. Furthermore let's say that technology related to availability is perfect as well. You can get whatever you want as soon as you want it because the broadband pipes are big enough and because the movies are easily replicated and efficiently distributed.

Total free choice when it comes to watching movies.

As I understand it, this is the scenario that most theater owners are thinking about when they fight the "shrinking window". To me, it seems utopian. Hence, there must be some problems with it. And certainly there are.

The contention from the opposition, is that a structured system of windows allows all the "separate" markets (theatrical release, 2nd run, rental, home video, premium channel, and finally network release) to maximize their earnings. They argue that this model churns out more money than collapsed windows and simultaneous availability would.

I have always had a couple of objections to this argument. 1.) I'm not even sure if it's true. There's the possibility that there is no overlap between the people who go through the various conduits. i.e. the people who buy the dvds may not be the same ones who watch it in the theater. Thus neither market suffers at the expense of the other. And isn't there potential for people who would buy the dvd immediately, but don't after the movie has been out and discussed widely for a while? 2.) If this model does churn out more money than simultaneous availability, it seems to do so at the expense of people's choice, and doesn't offer them anything in return. Is the only reason I can't buy a dvd when a movie is first released so that I can be hit up twice for it? Why would I, as a moviegoer, ever vote for a system like that? Is it really good that people are making purchase decisions because of lack of options? I think it has a tendency to make a lot of people unhappy as they start to realize that it's not necessary.

Ok, nothing new. Back to the problems with Utopia. So what is wrong with unlimited choice? Basically, I think, it turns out that there is more to enjoyment than having full control. I'd even go so far to argue that a lot of the true pleasures in life are hidden in the actions that we don't explicitly choose. If you like a song, for example, and you end up buying the whole album because that's the only way you can listen to the music when you want to, you may end up discovering that you love the artist's other songs. Unfortunately, the opposite tends to happen as often (if not more often) which is why people put such a premium on fine grained control; like buying an individual song on itunes.

What kind of pleasures are we forced into with the movies? The most obvious is the crowd. Getting in rythm with a crowd can amplify the comedy of a funny movie. Sharing disgust with the other people in the theater can make you feel more whole after sinking 2 hours into a terrible movie. Finding a pleasant crowd can make the most tired themes seem fresh when you see people genuinely reacting to them. Crowds, of course, have a well documented downside. In fact they're the principal focus of most people's hatred of going to the movies.

But here's one that you may not have thought of. Limiting the choices you have actually helps making choosing a movie to go to a solvable problem. Right now, when you want to watch something you haven't seen before, you know you can show up at the movies and probably find something. Once you get there, you know you only have the choice of a few movies, and not every movie ever created. How would you ever choose a movie if you could watch anything? That's the oft-cited problem with cable: hundreds of channels, but nothing's on.

Furthermore, it's a convenient way to consolidate the resources that will always be limited. Even in this fantasy world, there will only be a few public venues that are capable of putting on a show as only a multiplex can. Limiting those screens to new releases, sets an acceptible public expectation of how those public resources will be allocated (film wise).

There may be lots of other things that end up being very positive byproducts of the current limits on moviewatching. Just think about how much more valuable a thing feels when you can't have it all the time. I think limitations, whether they're necessary or not, is an important component of our ability to enjoy things. As they say, everything in moderation.

But does that mean that we're better off without collapsed windows and simultaneous availability of movies? Probably not. As much as the protectionist theater owners and studios would like to protect their livelihood, most people would be better off with more choice (I'm thinking of a lot of examples of developmental economics, that I think are applicable, but I'm a fairly amateur economist, so I'm not sure).

So what if we could preserve some of the benefits of forced limitations? We're probably going to have to, because I think a lot of these things are more important to the way people watch movies than they realize.

So what are some ways to "limit" how people will watch movies when they don't have to. Well, how do we limit our moviewatching now? I can think of a couple of ways. One: we wait until all our friends are available until we watch a movie. Two: we wait until we hear lots of good things about the movie.

These things might not even be that hard to simulate in the world of unlimited movie choice. If you're interested in movies that show off the beaten path, let's call you a film festival kind of guy. Chances are that you know other film festival types and you share recommendations with one another. In Malcolm Gladwell terms, you might even be considered a maven if people sought your advice on movies. One way to fill up a movie theater would be to send a message out to all the people who take your recommendations and suggest that they all check out a new movie. This is a lot like waiting till all your friends want to see a movie and probably share some of the same benefits (if everyone wants to see it, then it has a high likelihood of being good). Then if there's not that much interest, you can always purchase the movie and watch it on your own at home.

This simple idea is the basic building block of this exciting thought that incorporates all the possibilities of public theaters, home theaters, and information technology. If you're the movie recommender, let's say you suggest a movie. Several things can happen.

150 people commit to watching the movie. A theater (realizing the profit that can be made from concessions) "buys" the copyrights for each moviegoer. Everyone gets to watch the movie for free and the theater makes a killing on overpriced concessions
People cannot decide on a time or not enough people come together to command a multiplex auditorium. People can come together in smaller groups and watch it in a good home theater, or as individuals. The distributors are still able to collect money for showing the movie. People are still able to watch the movie, although at a price higher than that if they had "waited" for a bigger crowd.
The commitments of the movie watchers can be communicated directly to the film makers. If the people like the film, the film makers can rally support for their upcoming projects, and potentially even funding! The deal can go something like, "Would you like to pay $10 to contribute to funding a movie about x? You'll get to watch the movie for free for the rest of your life and get a dvd. If we don't raise the amount needed to fit the budget, by a certain date, your money will be refunded"

That last part is the real gem. Is there a more appropriate way of getting funding? You're funded by the people who are most interested in seeing the movie, at a level of risk that is dynamic and acceptible to each individual. And you cut out the overhead of the standardized practices of the studio. Furthermore, the film is paid for before you even start filming. And there is still incentive to sell the film even after it's made (you can make more money selling it to people who didn't "invest" in it). As a filmmaker, who would you rather be bargaining with, the audience, or the studio? And as a moviewatcher, who would you rather be bargaining with, the filmmakers or the studio? There will still be a place for studio films (people who don't want the hassle of going to a million flakey investors trying to give their input) but for anyone who has an original and untested vision, this makes a much more appropriate start.

The people making the movie recommendations are doing exactly what I wanted to do when I said I wanted to have a movie theater. I wanted to share the movies that were good and in some oblique way contribute to making more. I'm sure there are more people who would like to do the same.

Some not so Idle thoughts on a lazy Sunday

2006-04-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

I really should be at the movies. Or watching a movie on the screen that's 2 remote control button pushes away. But despite the long term benefits in my emotional state that this would probably be responsible for, I feel like I must immediately reflect on this article I was just reading in Harvard Magazine.

Nothing against graduates of Harvard, but my pride insists on letting you know that I don't regularly read this magazine. Martha's mom did her undergraduate work there and Martha saw the words "economics" and "irrational" on the cover and deduced that I would be interested in the article. She's good.

Anyway, the article was talking about the hot new field of "Behavioral economics" which seems to have a growing appeal to the most current generation of people entering the field of economics. The way I understand it, behavioral economics is interested in the predictable, but not perfectly rational way in which people make decisions. This is a subset of the general study of economics which studies how people translate their values into choices, and how that can affect resource allocation, planning, production, finance, etc.

Naturally, this intersects with a lot of the "work" I've developed through this blog. Going to the movies involves people all around you (including yourself) making irrational decisions to the max. And a lot of the time, it seems to just work out so that most people win. In this way, it's a bit like a little model of the real world.
The part of the article that really got me thinking was this.

Suppose a company wants to sell more soap. Traditional economists would advise things like making a soap that people like more, or charging less for a bar of soap. A behavioral economist might suggest convincing supermarkets to display your soap at eye level -- people will see your brand first and grab it.

As an economist, even when you think psychology is important, you don't think it's this important. And changing interest rates is expensive, but these pyschological elements cost nothing.

Economists are famous/notorious for phrasing their world in terms of costs and values, and this article posits that behavioral economists are especially sensitive to empirical evidence (they see irrational behavior in real life and seek to resolve it). The problem with this line of thinking, is that the author has stopped thinking like either a tradional economost OR a behavioral economist.

Of course invoking psychological elements has a cost. What happens when people learn the hard way that they were manipulated into doing something that does not maximize their utility? Sometimes you use up your one chance at one shot gimmick. Shouldn't the behavioral economist attention to empirical evidence unturned this stone?

My guess is that this can be largely ignored, because in aggregate (as people in marketing know well) it's never a one shot deal. You get new, inexperienced "suckers", without even trying, and the gimmick never seems to lose it's power. The cost is negligible. Unless you're listening to the people who got suckered.

Let's say we're talking about movies (and we always are). Everyone on the production/distribution/exhibition side wants people to sell more movies. Moviegoers clamor for lower prices, a more comfortable experience, and better movies. Much like the traditional economists suggestions for how to sell more soap, people thinking rationally about what they think would make them go to more movies suggest "real" improvements to the value proposition. But time and time again, observable trends in box office results and extensive studies of moviegoer behavior will support the idea that if you cut a certain kind of trailer and follow a certain kind of plot formula, this will have a much bigger effect on how much you can sell, than all of those other things.

But amidst all this, there's no shortage of people complaining. Forums everywhere are full of embittered people who were duped by a trailer and convinced of nothing but Hollywood's disingenuity. Is behavioral economists to suggest that "psychological" elements like cutting a trailer that appeals to your generic instincts is as likely to work on these people as it is on people who haven't been burned?

I'll concede that in many cases, the same tricks work over and over again (seeing a trailer for the same kind of action movie, or reading a review that pumped up a movie that I initially didn't think I'd like have gotten me into a theater seat many many times). But you have to consider that a lot of times they don't. As people learn, and become more experienced, their decision making changes.

People are not static, and the decisions that we make are not independent of one another. That's what causes phenomena like "ad blindness" and over saturation of marketing efforts.

This is yet another predictable element of economic decision making that doesn't get a lot of press. I think it's pushed to the margins because the "educated" people in any given area of life will always be outnumbered by the inexperienced, and thus their actions will get drowned out as noise. But I think it would be an interesting and productive study how to wield an understanding of how people's decisions evolve as they mature.

Maybe what happens is that people eventually start doing what I have been doing: Constructing their own personal movie watching experience (choosing their own movies and viewing conditions), when their needs outgrow what the public venues are able to provide. The booming home theater and "netflix" industries are certainly evidence of this.

Then, in effect, what the hollywood blockbuster and multiplex machines have developed is a kind of moviewatching school. A crash course in the visual language. They have discovered the best ways to draw in the uninitiated into the world of movies, and give them enough of a taste to develop their own preferences.

This, of course, makes this idea of behavioral economics, a bit more like child pyschology. And just because those "children" occupy adult bodies, the idea that some parts of the way they make decisions is underdeveloped should not be ignored.

I'm a sell out

2006-03-29T00:12:00.000-08:00

An interesting thing happened to me tonight when I went out to the movies. (This tends to happen; it's why I resolve to see at least one movie in a theater each week). Martha had the great idea to go see "Thank You for Smoking". When she gets an idea into her head she is great about looking into it and figuring out how we can do it. She planned for a show after I got home from basketball, and verified that the movie was in fact playing at a nearby theater.

Unfortunately, she's not always reliable when it comes to verifying details :) She brought us to the Aquarius in Palo Alto where we were surprised to find out that the Thank You for Smoking was not on the schedule for the evening. As we tried to figure out where it was playing, the well-informed girl staffing the box office stated "It's not at the Guild, it's probably playing at a Century Theater". There was a hint of disdain in her voice.

If you have been following this blog for the last year or so -- as I'm sure you have ;) -- you might remember that I commented (mostly in Century's defense) on an article about an independent theater protesting Century's booking practices. Steve Mason, the operator of the Palm d'Or (the independent theater), actually emailed me about the blog post and provided me with his personal perspective on the issue. I think an exerpt from his message is appropriate:

"Your perception of Century Theatres is interesting as a customer. As an exhibitor in this industry, they are known as ruthless, demanding, and prone to litigation. It is often that a distributor says that dealing with Century is like dealing with the mafia."

I couldn't help but be reminded of this discussion when I heard the tone of the Aquarius employee. The Aquarius and the Guild comprise the Palo Alto presence of Landmark Theaters. Landmark, of course, has been a long time supporter for independent films. Until a few years ago, it had been the only chain to carry them. And now it seems that they, too, are getting shut out of movies that they may have wanted.

It all seems a little bit wrong. Landmark, being a first mover, and playing a pivotal role in creating the audience for movies like "Thank you for Smoking" doesn't deserve to be shut out of movies.

The worst part, though, is that when I heard our movie wasn't playing at either the Aquarius, or the Guild, I was actually relieved. Truth be told, as much as I love where they came from and the movies I can see there, I hate watching movies at those two theaters. The seats are uncomfortable, the screens are small, feel a little dim, and the sound is subpar. I'd much rather be at Palo Alto Square lounging in a comfortable seat, and experiencing all the polish of a well produced movie in sweet sweet hi-fi.

I was a little alarmed by this. What does that mean for people like me? If I'm ever lucky enough to have a theater, won't it be more likely to be a place like the Aquarius, than Palo Alto square? Where do my alliances lie? Do I really think the bigger theater chains like Century should be able to steal me away from theaters like the Aquarius, or the Palm d'Or?

In a word, yes.

It boils down to providing the best movie going experience possible. If the resources of a theater chain enable me to do that better than independence as a theater owner, than I'm siding of the Regal's, AMC's, and Century's of the world. To take it even further, if providing people with home theaters enables me to do that better than multiplexes, I guess I'll go into selling home theater equipment.

I find some theoretical grounding in all of this as well. In yet another previous post, I clumsily challenged the propriety of capitalism for all of our social needs. I've been doing some basic thinking and reading about capitalistic economies and competitive environments. And where capitalism (and competition) is really effective is at the margins. For example, providing people access to independent movies where there were none before (what Landmark did). But after the bloody competive battles yield the proper way to do things and still cut a profit, there's no need to compete in that space. It starts to be counterproductive, if nothing new is going to be developed. The only thing left to do is to make the experience better. And that battle will go to the people with the most resources to do so: the institutions.

With no disrespect to the important work that indpendent theaters have done in bringing a fresh variety of movies to watchers like me, their role in all of this is a bridge between and undeveloped market, and an optimal solution for getting people to the movies they want, how they want them.

To be sure, the work that first movers, like Landmark, do is both costly and instrumental to the development of any industry. And they should be awarded with some sort of patent on the process that they've perfected (if other people are going to use it). But independent theaters that are gradually losing this battle should not assume a protectionist stance on their roles. I hope that when I'm faced with these types of conflicts, I have the foresight to understand this.

Of course all this aside, at the heart of the matter here and at the Palm d'Or, the issue is that the question of who can provide a better service is not answered. Locking out nearby theaters from showing the same movie limits the ability to compete on even ground. Some people may prefer what the Aquarius has to offer, and the Aquarius may even want to offer it on a different schedule than Palo Alto Square. That, of course, may impede Palo Alto square's ability to make a living. But stamping out the competition and winning by denying the audience choice doesn't seem like a very productive practice.

And like that... he's gone.

2006-03-07T22:40:00.000-08:00

George Lucas:"The Blockbuster Is Dead"
go to original article ... or email me for article text

""The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie, Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong""

I'm inclined to agree. Sort of.

I think it's all too easy for "Hollywood" studios to make their money back on the big budget movies they produce. It's formulaic, in fact. That's why everyone celebrates and jeers at the big flops and misses. We're so used to them winning (and winning ugly) that we like to see them lose every once in a while. If you've ever cheered against the Yankees, Duke or (I hate to say it) the Lakers, you know what I'm talking about.

The studios have made a precise science out of what the public will come out to see, and it doesn't necessarily have much to do with how good, original, or meaningful the movie is. But they can make their money back (and more) in theatrical release -- and definitely in dvd sales -- because they're smart about what they put out. What people who go to the movies a lot are noticing, is that smart production moves don't tend to lead to interesting movies.

So what George is essentially saying is that it's impossible for GOOD big-budget movies to make their money back.

Over my many years of being obsessed with Star Wars and following what I could of George Lucas, I've flip flopped in my opinion of him many times. In the end, I believe that he is, in fact, an artist. He can fail to execute well, he's not prone to admitting mistakes, and he's not always in touch with his audience or the general public. But there is soul and creation infused in all the stuff he tries to do.

Reading the reaction to his most recent public comments, it's clear that not many people agree. Which is unfortunate. As an artist, I think Lucas is speaking out about how no one who wants to make an expressive piece of cinema will be able to access "Hollywood" funding, because outside the formula, the economics of film distribution just don't add up. And for people who think about art, the other movies don't count.

His predictions seem off base, because they probably are. I doubt we'll see the average production cost dip. Big movies still make money, and they will continue to because the channels are established and mature. The reality is, the checks and balances that exist corporately make it impossible for them to fail. But the artist is myopic and sees only his and his contemporaries paths. The people who want to make GOOD movies will have to work outside the hollywood machine (create a new machine perhaps) and do it for less money.

If this interests you, read the book "Blockbuster" (referenced on the right). Blockbusters are not just movies that cost a lot of money and bring in huge grosses. They refer to a specific period in the history of cinema where two huge dams seemed to break simultaneously. There was a backlog of images and stories that filmmakers were holding in their collective imagination that had yet to put on the screen. And there was a backlog of these same images in the viewers collective imaginations as well as access and choice to a multiplicity of films. The multiplex and big budget movie matured together and they were born of the Blockbuster (whose name even suggests exceeding capacity -- lines that went out the building and around the block).

Now the economic channels are more mature and there has been little unmet demand like before. I don't think a business will erupt like what happened with Star Wars, but steady technological changes will start to decentralize the big screen movie viewing experience (out of the multiplexes and into high quality home theaters and intermediaries) and this shift will allow a more balanced distribution of films across the appropriate channels. Not every film is feasible if it needs to go out to 10,000 screens worldwide. But any film with an audience can probably find a way to get made for that audience.

The blockbuster, isn't on the verge of death. Without anyone really noticing, it died years ago.

Back in the Saddle...theater Seat

2006-01-29T22:14:00.000-08:00

3 weeks in thailand...
2 east bay lodgings...
3 new jobs for Martha...
4 Economics books...
2 ideas for patents...
1 google sales conference...
1 christmas...
2 New Yearses...
1 Home theater Screen...
10 HD Channels...
500 spammers...
2000 emails...
and 18 movies later and...

I'm back to blogging! Sorry to anyone who missed me! Stay tuned for everything from Mark Cuban to my experiences in the wonderful mystery land of HD.

I'll be in my Trailer

2005-11-09T09:28:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend I discovered the awe inspiring power of on demand television. I had been reading about the various content delivery empires that each of the studios had been archtecting in "The Big Picture". Having never ordered any on demand services, I really had no concept of how mature the service was or how far along the on demand operators actually were.

And then I visited my uncle's house this weekend.

It was awesome. HBO on demand lets you watch the entire lineup of movies scheduled for that month PLUS all the series HBO has any time you feel like pulling them up. We even watched the starz bunny movies in 30 seconds. Their entire cable subscription included 3 on-demand boxes (one of which is a DVR) and high speed cable internet all for just over 100 bucks. And HD is an option for just a little bit more.

I had no idea.

Having all this content had me feeling overwhelmed, and the reason is illustrated perfectly by the fact that one box had a DVR and On Demand. I realize that the DVR is probably meant to record the content that is not available on demand, but isn't a DVR On-demand combo a little redundant? Isn't the point of both devices exactly the same: to control when and how you access content? How would you choose which one to use, and more importantly, how do you choose what you watch?

As I've noticed with my own Tivo, my viewing habits have totally altered my ability to stay abreast of popular TV. It's the classic difference between push and pull models of viewing. Before, TV was pushed onto me. I got home at a certain time, so I watched what was on, and it helped shape my interests and stay on top of what was going to come on next or in the next weeks. Now, I pull what I want off the tivo, which makes catching things I want infinitely more convenient, and I can skip the commercials (for other shows as well as commercial productS) to get to the stuff I came to see. But I've noticed, after a while, that after a while, I stop knowing what to watch at all. It's not that there isn't stuff on TV that I would like, I just don't know it's going to be on.

And what if you're a baby right now, growing up in the Tivo Generation. How will you ever know what to watch when your exposure is limited to what ends up on tivo or DVR?

Arguably, we've always been limited to what the networks (or our parents) thought was appropriate to show us on TV, but that only reinforces my point, that we're at a stage with our content availability that we need to take more deliberate steps to help viewers sort out what they'll enjoy.

I was thinking a good first step would be to proliferate audio-visual samples and summaries of the available content (i.e. trailers). But one problem with trailers is that a bad one will ruin the movie before you see it, or may not even express why certain people would want to watch a movie.

So what if people were able to cut their own trailers and share them?

Essentially it would be taking a page from the "new media" which offers a near-perfect analog. The idea of blogs and amateur news coverage is that while no individual source will be particularly accurate, the body of blogging work should provide complete coverage for a variety of perspectives and approach perfect accuracy across the collective by representing so many viewpoints.

If people who actually saw a movie and enjoyed it were able to cut trailers that were designed to compel people to enjoy the same parts that they did, we might not have to suffer the terrible misleading trailers that are designed to attract the lowest common denominator audience. Sure, there would be a lot of crappy trailers floating around (just like there are crappy blogs) but the good ones would be even more accessible to the actual watchers of content than good blogs that recommend the content would be.

Some intriguing side notes:

-If you hated a movie, you could even make a trailer that showcased the parts that you think might make people not want to watch it. I'm no advocate of parental controls, but you could cut a trailer that showed the explcit violence or sex in a movie that made you uncomfortable to serve as a counterpoint to the trailers that celebrate a movie.

-It would make the quality of a movie measurable in a much more meaningful way. If you could keep track of how a moviegoer got to a movie, you could also keep track of how many people liked it that came from that source/trailer. The results would be much richer than the plain box office success which could be affected by everything from false advertising, to national disasters to the holiday season. You could localize people's enjoyment of a movie to particular elements.

-While the film makers have a right (or perhaps even an obligation) to follow through on displaying a film according to their vision of the story, the public success of the film ultimately lies in the reception of the audience. Just like great works of literature, great films can be interpreted in many ways, perhaps some that the director or writer did not forsee or even intend. But they touch those chords with people nonetheless. If having a variety of critical reviews can help guide readers to great literature, a variety of promotional trailers would certainly help guide all the interested movie goers to a film that they would enjoy. Not just the ones that the director anticipates would enjoy the movie. It would be putting the success of the film in the hands of the people who really have the power to enjoy the film and thus make it successful.

Let the Hard Times Roll

2005-10-23T20:51:00.000-07:00

Movie theaters up the ante on advertising
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"While the trend took off in Europe, it never really gathered steam here as theaters were afraid of upsetting moviegoers.
But theater chains became much more receptive to tapping advertisers after falling on hard times financially in recent year"

Let's say you had a girlfriend. And you were afraid that you were close to breaking up. And the reason you two were breaking up was because you kept spending all of her money. Even after realizing that lets say you decided to spend more of her money. There are only two possibilities for what's going through your head.
- This is a last ditch effort to milk her for all she was worth before she kicks you to the curb
- You think might be able to buy her favor back spending her cash on some roses, jewelry, or a tropical vacation.

Either way, what would you say the chances of staying together were?

I guess the theater chains don't see it that way. Moviegoers shouldn't expect a better experience even if they are bankrolling it themselves with their time money, and in this age of ads, their eyeballs.

I think it's important to note how this trend took off in Europe years ago. Europe also offers much more attractive moviegoing prices in the form of monthly or season passes. As in, they're actually embracing the fact that movies are becoming an Ad-supported medium. Here, the theaters are trying to eat their cake and have it too.

I have to admit, the gossipy screen content isn't bad. I do like seeing the behind the scenes stuff when I show up earlier to the movie. But I can't help resenting the fact that they're collecting two checks from me.

Save me a seat!

2005-10-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

New Website Targets Home Theater Seating Market: SpielbergSeating.com
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"These real movie theater chairs are actually engineered and designed with movie viewing in mind, making them perfect for the growing home theater market.

Advantages of having a home theater are many. Having a real mini movie theater in your home keeps the kids at home more often, encourages the guys to come over for the NFL Super Bowl party, and have a ‘girls night in’ for a chick flick and some popcorn."

A true sign of the times.

The home media products and theatrical viewing products are quickly converging. Theater seats may not be as high profile an item as say, digital projectors or DVDs that are released at the same time as the theatrical premiere, but are perhaps a stonger indicator that the distinction won't be sticking around for much longer.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy for this situation. I guess home theaters are a lot like swimming pools. Everything you need to create a swimming pool in your backyard is available and almost commonplace, despite the fact that pools are also commonly available through public institutions. Noboby thinks twice when they see a pool in someone's backyard, it's entered people's minds that the swimming pool is something that you can enjoy at home.

The biggest difference, I suppose, is that people don't have to ask studio's permission when they want to practice their backstroke. :)

Punctuality

2005-10-12T23:55:00.000-07:00

I think some of my coworkers at Google find it intriguing when I say I want to operate a movie theater for a living. While asking me about it one day, one of my friends, Matt, asked me (paraphrasing) what a movie that changed my life was.

I find that this is one of the most earnest questions that people are likely to ask me about when we discuss this topic, and consequently, one of that can provide some of the best insight as to why I would want to spend my life in movie theaters.

My answer to Matt was that I don't think movies ever changed my life as in introduced a new way of thinking. Generally the ones that really moved me -- or that I really found important to me and always remembered -- were ones that dealt with ideas that I had been tossing around in my head and either helped me put them into focus or affirmed a direction I was moving my life in. Like how Contact landed right as I was at the peak of my academic ability in high school and as I was thinking about whether I should continue to spend my Sunday's in church.

I'm thinking about this now, because I just got back from watching one of those movies: Proof

I've been weirdly hesitant to blog recently, all of a sudden feeling the weight my work at Google and my own expectations. And it's left me very tired. While I've tried to continue keeping up the schedules and practices that I use to regiment some discipline into my blogging, I just haven't been able to turn any of the ideas I've been having recently into thoughtful posts or insight.

But in the end, the first practice I instituted is the one that's helping me shore up some inspiration. I made a goal to see at least one movie in a theater every week, and tonight is one of those nights where I remember why.

I've actually been to the movies 5 times in the last 2 weeks (I think I've been pretty desperate to get something going in my head and in my heart) to see Serenity, Roll Bounce, A History of Violence, Into the Blue, and finally, proof.

I walked away from the first four thinking that I'd seen each movie before, and in various ways I'd seen each done better (This was less true for A History of Violence than for the other three). I didn't detest any of the movies, and I could identify more than a little virtue in each film. But proof connected with me in a way that the other ones couldn't. And got me thinking about how proof tonight connected with me in a way that it couldn't have at any other time in my life.

Movies (like a lot of things in life) are all about timing.

I'll often hear criticisms of movies that rail on them for telling a story that had already been told or for trying something that had already been done. I feel like that is one of the least useful criteria for critiquing a film. But I also see it as one of the most natural things for an individual critic to bring up.

For me, films boil down to two things: Truth and Execution.

How good a film is dependent on its ability to resonate with a viewer because of how true it is, and how well it is accomplish what it sets out to do. Evaluating a film with respect to other existing films doesn't address either of these two things (which form the basis of a film's ability to touch people). But evaluating a film with respect to other existing films that you have seen does address whether or not you like it. Because a film that has moved you in a particular way, can never be supplanted by a film that moves you in a similar way. There just isn't enough room. (It's one of the great problems with having institutionalized individual film critics. A single person can really only advise someone with the exact same film watching history. It would make more sense to have one articulate voice rise out of the masses for each film. In fact, IMDB does this to some extend)

So what's the point of all this, and what does it have to do with movie theaters? Well, it's everything really. All there is.

I don't think people can mature without periodically taking time to reflect, either by creating art or observing art. The art can take many forms, printed literature, religious ceremonies, academic study, but one way that works for a lot of people is watching films. But as I mentioned before, with movies, as with art, timing is everything. So if movie theaters want to be venues that facilitate people's access to films that they'll remember, they have to recognize people's inherent sensitivity to timing. Movies need to be available to the patrons at the right times.

In a way, Hollywood does us a favor (or at least the younger generation) by remaking movies over and over and over again. In part it's less by diabolical design and more by nature. Just as there are legions of new people ready to receive an old message, there are legions of new storytellers that are just realizing how important that message is and desperate to tell it. And when it comes down to it, there are really only a few messages that need to be told. Some religious texts can fit it into a hundred page book that even I could finish. And the more current a transmission is, the more likely it is to be compatible with the receivers on the other end.

I take a lot of flak for being a "movie guy" and not having seen a lot of films like the ones that make up the AFI top 100. And I used to feel guilty or some how fake when I would watch some of those films and be totally unmoved. After tonight, I've got my alibi.

The challenge is to line up the people with what they need/want to see. And the exhibition arm is an important layer for filtering information down to the viewers, and back up to the creators. If people knew what they needed to see to they wouldn't need to see it. Theater operators (who have seen a lot of movies) are well positioned to direct people to films. Conversely, if filmmakers were perfect, they'd have very little to make films about. Showing the films to the right people can spark the dialog that the artists need to mature themselves (and make more and better movies).

Exhibitors can't do either of these things, without respecting timing.

As a bit of an aside, this explains another of my most commonly criticized movie quirks. In college I started amassing a rather large DVD collection that I would loan out to my friends and dorm-mates, and anyone who came by really. As it started getting bigger, it required a fair amount of organization, and I decided to order the films by year of release.

This infuriated people.

No one understood why I would want to do this, and I couldn't give a very convincing explanation. The main thing I liked about it was that I thought it was cool to see when a bunch of movies I really liked all came out for the same Oscar season (like 1998). I liked seeing them bunched visually.

Now I realize that it was more than that. I liked traversing my personal history through film. The concept of timing even explains the other thing that seemed to infuriate people: that I had lots of movies that they thought were awful. Organizing my DVDs (good and bad) by year gave me a rough map to revisit all the major events in my life. What would make even more sense would be ordering movies in the order that I saw them (and then possibly even in the order that I _saw_ them, or really understood them).

Now that I think about it, this would be a cool thing to offer movie theater patrons, to reward them for their habit and remind them about what their habit has built (like amazon.com does).

I think I'm going to go reorder my DVDs. :)

Paint by Numbers

2005-10-03T20:50:00.000-07:00

Curiosity Culture

"Oftentimes, all we have to do is check that a movie is as bad as everyone says it is, in enough numbers, and - poof! - we've accidentally launched another blockbuster film franchise on an unsuspecting world."

I'm finally on to a new book (both books, by the way, are great, and are listed over on the side bar), and a couple of pages into it, it's already helped me focus on a point that I've been meaning to bear down on. We all hear the box office reports that are meant to do everything from measure a film's success in earning back it's production budget to give insightful critiques about moviegoing trends and the social climate. Unfortunately, the simple gross revenues tend to do this very poorly.

For example Tom Shone (Author of afore-mentioned new book) compares the list of record-breaking films by gross revenue, to the all time list of top grossers when adjusted for simple inflation. The first list is dominated by movies released in the last two decades, with little to no representation from any previous era. The inflation adjusted list drops most of these films out of the top 50 or down to near the end of the list. This list is headlined by Gone with the Wind and has several representatives from the 70's, 60's, 50's, and even the 30's.

Obviously there are a lot of things to compare from era to era, how many films were released, how many venues were playing different films, how much more expensive films are to produce, what alternative entertainment existed, etc. But the greater point is that, the gross revenue numbers that seem to get broken year after year don't really mean anything.

Most unfortunate is the fact that gross revenue is the only number around. I know, because I quote it to my friends all the time. I even regurgitate the "interesting" spins I get off IMDB about how the revenue is the largest seasonal opening for a film starring a particular actor without the presence of another actor in a particular genre yada yada...

Box Office analysis needs some serious attention. There's an ESPN writer that I really like, John Hollinger, who evaluates players and situations with an extreme statistical bias, however goes beyond the traditional metrics and combines the stats that are already being recorded into more meaningful numbers. For example, he combines a player's scoring output, rebounding numbers, defensive contributions, etc into an all around evaluator "Player Efficiency Rating". He combines 3 point accuracy, standard field goal percentage, and free throw percentage into a "True shooting percentage". These concepts are already starting to become popular with the play-by-play commentators and other analysts who evaluate player performance for the general public.

A suite of numbers like this, but applied to the film industry, would accomplish a few really important things. One it would push the general public towards a more imaginative understanding of the film landscape. This could inform their moviegoing habits, and potentially shift how and where they purchased media. I think it would also legitimize a lot of projects that don't look so hot when you look at their gross revenue. For example, a movie with a good per theater draw across 50 theaters, never looks that impressive, when you tally it together, but it's possible that it's generating twice the interest of a movie with a wider release despite a smaller marketing budget. Finally, the DVD/home media sales are already factoring heavily into the studio's estimates of a movie's profits. This should start to be institutionalized, as again, it legitimizes some projects that don't look attractive in wide theatrical release, but could still have a successful life in home video.

This number could be an important bargaining point for two groups of people. The creative forces (actors, directors, anyone with profit participation deals) could cite it in their contracts. Since the DVD release will be sliding closer and closer to the theatrical release, exhibitors can make a case for a share of the overal box office revenues, and if studio content doesn't want to comply, maybe independent distributors (like what landmark is offering currently) will more willing to deal.

As it stands, I have a lot of box office data to stare at, but no numbers to show for it. As I accumulate more data, I expect things will start to become clear (I hope :) ). Between now and then, I'll try to pick up a statistics textbook and build on the following concepts:

Blockbuster Rating: Some concept of true dominance, like Gone with the Wind, or Titanic recently
Staying Power: Films that are either rewatcheable or continue to generate interest
Home Video/Theatrical Bias: Films that were watched more or less in one format
Overall Value Proposition: How much earning potential a film has relative to it's production costs

And a bunch more that I can't think of right now. (But I'd love to hear ideas)

Reinventing the Wheel

2005-09-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

Film exhibitor is directing a construction project
go to original article ... or email me for article text

""I think the reason drive-ins became popular was twofold," Harris said. "First, they recognized that America after World War II had become a mobile society and that we would do everything we possibly could in our cars. Second, smaller exhibitors couldn't afford to bring films to hardtop [indoor] theaters, but they could get them for the drive-ins. It was a way to get into the business."

"It was cheap back then to buy 10 to 40 acres on the outskirts of some town. Land is much too expensive now for that. There are maybe only 100 drive-ins left in the entire country.""

Here's an interesting segue into another half baked thought I've been struggling with. If the Drive-in was the low cost way into the exhibitor business, and nickelodeons were the entry level operations that preceded them, what's the cheap way into the business now?

Obviously, they're doing it over at the Moxie (see previous post) but I think reading through the Moxie blog should convince you that between permits, finding financing, preposterous rents, and studio distribution arms milking every last penny from their content libraries, it's entirely too difficult to get started in this business. Or any business for that matter. Which may seem like a reasonable hurdle if your goal is to turn a profit. It's widely accepted that it takes money to make money, and being that it's no interest of mine, I'm content to let the MBA's debate that point. But maybe somewhere along the line, it stopped being commonly accepted that businesses don't exist to make money. Businesses start because someone wants to be afforded the opportunity to provide a good or service to somebody else.

Obviously it's not as simple as that. And as far as I can tell, the reason for that is that if whatever resources would be consumed by a business can be used in a more profitable way, than the more profitable scheme wins. They tell me that it's called capitalism.

But is it really? One way I've been taught to understand capitalism is that it's a successful way of organizing people into an economy because one is rewarded for working hard, and thus incentivized to continue contributing. That seems to fit, more or less with the general idea of the previous paragraph.

But I was thinking about it (and forgive me if this is obvious and not as interesting to you as it is to me), and it seems like the reason capitalism has been so successful is something different. Capitalism allows people to basically fill in the needs of their community as they arise (as opposed to circumventing them as the self-oriented incentive system would suggest). People see a problem, realize that they can do something about it, and can afford to spend their time working on it, because it pays. This is great for the governing body, because they don't have to think of everyone's needs ahead of time and can leverage the intelligence and enthusiasm of the citizens (rightly so). And it's great for the community because they don't have to wait for the slow deliberation that is a natural result of a complicated governing body.

So if you're following my logic -- Assertion A: It's no longer easy to provide a service you want to provide, Asserion B: One of Capitalism's great benefits was that it allowed people to provide serices they wanted to provide. Does the combination of these two assertions suggest capitalism has outlived it's usefulness? I would answer yes... but if I were to give an impartial answer, it depends on the arena.

The problem with most industries, is that as they've matured, they've become dominated by institutions that are provide as much bad (if not more) than good. These institutions help preserve knowledge and prevent people from having to reinvent the wheel. But at the same time, they necessarily shift their operationa focus from providing a service to (sometimes exclusively) staying alive.

And on top of that, they often deny people the joy of inventing the wheel.

Maybe this is all fine if you buy into the idea that innovation and living on the cutting edge means that people will always have a place to dig into their souls and find that joy. But I'd argue it's not the same. Most of the discoveries and innovations that will actually make people feel fulfilled are things that have already been institutionalized and made unavailable (ironically, through school based education). That's why people in small towns still want to start movie theaters even when they've been to multiplexes, and why college students move back to farms to experience truly providing their own food. And it's even why people still find giving birth one of the most soulful experiences of their lives even though it's happened over and over and over again since the beginning of time.

In light of all this, I think it's unwise for a culture to continue without making consideration for enabling its citizens to participate in the meaningful tasks and occupations that will make them feel whole.

I don't know what this calls for. Probably some recognition of mature industries that are important to people, and diverting the interest in these industries from keeping th old institutions around to giving places for new generations to break in. In true capitalistic form.

And then opening my movie theater will be a snap! :)

Better late than never!

2005-09-27T18:10:00.000-07:00

It's showtime at Springfield's Moxie
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"The 75-seat, single-screen Moxie Cinema opens to the public tomorrow night at 408 W. Walnut St. downtown after months of anticipation, delays and renovation. The first film shown will be "Me and You and Everyone We Know," a contemporary romance which has won awards at the Cannes and Sundance film festivals.

It's the culmination of a dream and hard work for owners Dan and Nicole Chilton, lifelong movie buffs who met as employees at Springfield 8 and married two years ago."

I'm a little late, since this happened about a week ago, but what would be a greater tribute to the belated opening of the moxie than belated post about its opening :). Also I couldn't pass on recognizing the culminating event of a blog that has been such an inspiration to me.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

2005-09-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

Unruly teens spur bigger police presence at theaters
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Ken and Eunice Pierce, owners of Picture Show III in Palm Coast, complain that 100 or more raucous teens often gather in front of the theater on Friday nights.

Some never buy tickets. Others buy a ticket then disrupt the film being shown, the couple said."

As one of the people who probably constituted the raucus mobs being complained about here, I have to admit this issue takes on a level of personal significance. I mean, I never threw a drink at another theatergoer or beat down anyone from a rival gang, but I did engage in my share or rowdy and michievous behavior at the multiplex when I was in High school... um... college... ok like last week. But, the point is, I definitely feel for these kids.

When you're too young to be legally allowed to do most of the things you find interesting, and old enough to start thinking for yourself and really exploring the world, there's something irresistable about congregating at the movies, no matter who you are or who you roll with. First of all, everyone goes. Even the kids who can't go out without their parents generally end up at the movies friday night (even if it is with their parents).

And while you don't really think about it at the time, the movies capture your imagination (if you end up buying a ticket :) ) in a way that school and most other things you're doing really can't. They cover all the issues of romance, growth, independence, friendship, etc that are all at their dramatic apex. And being around all that just makes you want to hang out.

But at the same time, I know how intimidated I was by some of the kids that hung around movie theaters (and I'm sure at some point, I must have intimidated someone much older or younger than me), and it can sometimes take you out of what would otherwise be a fantastic time.

Cops are obviously not the solution. Nobody ends up feeling safer around cops, even if they do stop the worst crimes from happening. My first thought would be to embrace the youth (which hollywood already tends to do with its product) and cater to their needs. But I can't really think of good ways to do that without alienating other patrons.

There needs to be an environment that lends itself to self regulation. I feel like if people had better things to do than hit each other, then they'd probably do them. One obvious thing is if kids could afford the movies maybe they wouldn't hang around outside as much. Or if there was some lounge where kids could buy affordable snacks and chat alongside other patrons, they wouldn't alienate so many people.

I haven't thought too much about this, to be honest, but it's so important! The movies mean so much to people who are growing up, theaters need to be a place where they can be introduced to a public world in a productive way. And I don't think the solution needs to involve heavy policing or anti-teen rules. I think we just need to look at the places where younger just naturally interact well with their more mature counterparts. What are those places? Libraries? Apprenticeships? Malls? (probably not malls), Doctor's offices? Nursing homes? Operas?

Just don't give up on the kids while you've got a chance to help them along.

Are we there yet?

2005-09-19T00:28:00.000-07:00

Disney At The Forefront Of Digital Cinema
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"NEW YORK - As digital cinema starts to move from technical specs to reality, The Walt Disney Co. has become the first studio to commit to providing its pictures for the new format.

The Mouse House pledge is part of a potential rollout of more than 2,500 digital-cinema systems being administered by tech companies Christie and AccessIT (amex: AIX - news - people ).

The joint venture, dubbed Christie/AIX, will fund 200 d-cinema systems this year, which could more than triple the number of digital screens in the U.S. "

In other news, Disney seems to have made some sort of commitment to funding the installation digital cinema, as per its promise. Unfortunately I seemed to have imaginined what would have been the most juiciest part of this article which was a few vague details about how the funding would work (which I swear I saw, but no longer seem to be able to find). As you may have read elsewhere, Disney plans to pay whatever financial institution that actually purchases the projectors a "print fee" of about 1000 dollars (roughly the equivalent of manufacturing a physical print) for every film released to be shown on a new projector.

I wonder how it's going to work with the other studios though. Will everybody pitch in and pay the print fee? Will studios who don't chip in be barred from the digital projectors? It doesn't seem likely that Disney would offer the other studios a free ride, but I hope whatever results isn't fewer movies being available.

All You Can Eat

2005-09-18T23:37:00.000-07:00

What Hollywood and the Movie Theater Industry Need is a Good Kick in the . . .
go to original article ... or email me for article text

"Companies like Netflix, Gamefly, Napster & Comcast all make it possible to subscribe for a fee instead of buy or pay per use. By charging per month, these services bring in substantially more revenue than businesses that charge per use. This revenue, by the way, is the magical reoccurring revenue that every business so covets.

My name is Davis, I am a TV addict. While some people are proponents of the ala carte pay per use pricing menus for their entertainment, if I was forced to pay for every show I watch on TV, I would either watch a lot less TV or pay a hell of a lot more. Some people like to go outside and play in the sunshine. I do not. At present by paying cable "only" $39.99 (plus $10 in taxes that they really should pay for) per month I am the equivalent of the super fat man who spends every day gorging himself at the smorgasbord.

So this brings me to my point. Why not offer a monthly subscription fee to your local movie theater chains. Consumers would be happy to spend $30 or $40 per month in order to have the privilege of seeing films the way I did when I worked for the theaters. Instead of collecting $40 per year from me now, theaters could instead bring in $480 each year with an all you can eat model."

The idea of including a membership pass offering at movie theaters is another old favorite of mine. I've often thought this would be a good idea (and it's worth noting that this is already in place in several places in Europe), particularly for the theater owners -- who don't get very much reliable revenue. But reading this call for subscription based movie-going, jumpstarted my imagination for realizing the potential of this idea.

It hits close to home, because I've tossed around a number of concepts on this blog that would be affected/addressed by taking a measure such as this. The foremost of these was briefly addressed in an old blog post about doing the math behind going to the movies. The beauty of serving movie-going in a buffet line is that theater owners can now compare their services with those that use the predominant model of charging for modern entertainment or digitally enabled services (both classifications apply to the digital cinema). And once they compare, they can compete.

Put another way, movie theaters won't have to look so unattractive next to the prospect of digital cable or cell phone service. The unfavorable comparison between "watching as much TV as I want for $30 a month" vs "paying $10 for one movie ticket" will look much better when movie theaters can offer unlimited movies at $30 a month. Now moviegoing and cable can match up feature for feature. Both have a similar price point and both involve some form of unlimited access.

People might not even end up watching more movies for their money. But the peace of mind that comes with knowing you're getting a much better value and that you have the freedom to watch as many movies as you want will, I suspect, prove irresistible. Some might argue that the added value of this freedom is totally imagined if you don't end up watching any more movies than you pay for. But in a way, using this model, people pay for something that they should have been paying for the whole time.

I don't think, I've covered it on this blog, but I have often considered the fact that people who go to movie theaters less frequently than others, disproportionately benefit (cost wise) from the services of a movie theater despite the fact that the frequent moviegoers actually do more to support the theater. The thought goes something like this: Even if you doesn't go to a local movie theater, you always have the option of going. There is some value in the availability of the theater that people tend not to think about. Furthermore, the theater can't stay open for free, even if you don't go (this verifies that theater availability has a legitimate price). Operating costs are pretty much the same for the theater whether it's full or empty. So, by this logic, a person who goes to a theater once a week pays for his share of the theater's weekly operating costs, but a person who only goes once a month is off the hook for 3/4 or the time. And the person who goes 4 times a month doesn't carry as much of the burden as one who goes 4 times a week. And so on...

The question of who should pay for this value seems open to debate. Should people pay for it indirectly through taxes paid to the local government -- who in turn subsidizes the theater's rent? Should the cost show up more explicity in higher ticket prices for less frequent movie goers?

Neither seems particularly feasible, as the local governments have plenty of people asking for tax dollars, and the more expensive ticket prices for infrequent patros would discourage a lot of people from even trying the theater.

Ah, but how about those subscriptions? They accurately address the "hidden" value of theaters always being available, since you pay a set amount and can come whenever you want. More importantly, it opens peoples imaginations to the prospect of going to the movies regularly. It is doubly succesful because it not only fairly charges everyone for their share of going to the movies, but it increases the value for the frequent moviegoers whose role as patrons is invaluable for any theater (for a variety of reasons from concessions sales to word of mouth marketing to loyalty.)

But is a monthly pass feasible? Obviously movie theaters suffer certain constraints that don't always apply to cable television, netflix, etc. The most obvious is capacity. Theaters can't always accomodate the maximum audience they draw. A related problem is needing to have a print in order to show a movie. Aha! Here's an intriguing place to plug in the possibilities of digital cinema. With unlimited digital copies of a movie, a theater can show the blockbuster film du jour to every seat in the house if they wanted to. All they would need is an accurate projection of how many people want to see a movie and how many screens need to be dedicated to a film. A good way to arrive at this projection might be to request that passholders "reserve" a spot by signing up online or going to a box office.

In a best case scenario, there would be no need to "black out" certain popular dates in the schedule. Having black out dates would certainly reduce the value of monthly pass, possibly defeating its purpose for some people. With accurate projections for satisfying the boom-like demand for brand new theatrical releases, theaters should still have the chance to even accomodate walk-in viewers by reserving a screen or two for them (who might then be enticed by the value of the monthly pass). Hopefully then the blockbusters could serve as loss-type leaders to bring in people to watch the rest of the films being featured at the multiplex.

And if the monthly pass becomes successful in driving people to request the films they want to watch before they arrive at the theater to watch them, it could team up with digital projection in another powerful way by tapping into the entire film library.

And I'm talking about the whole damn thing.

Since digital cinema theoretically allows viewers to watch any film at virtually the flip of a switch, people can start to approximate the freedom of choice they enjoy with cable, pay-per-view, or internet downloads. A savvy interface would allow people to share film preferences and resonate with each other until they filled a single theater with a bunch of people who wanted to watch the same movie. And again, since any movie is fair game, people don't have to be subject to a slow season from Hollywood, they can turn to old favorites or films on a "limited run" (although that distinction may not exist in the world of digital cinema)

What could make this even better (for the moviegoers at least) would be to have a pass that worked at any theater, regardless of chain ownership or affiliation. This would be a huge win for the moviegoers who could limit their movie budget to one monthly pass and not have to worry about multiple subscriptions. Participants might have to take a leap of faith with respect to profit sharing but an umbrella monthly pass ticket provider that a theater could just "plug into" might be a benefit to everyone. In fact, this would probably have to be the case for smaller arthouse theaters in the same area that tend to work like a decentralized multiplex anyway.

I find that I alternate between favoring ideas that encourage unlimited use and choice, and those that model a more efficient and conservative model of using (and paying for) only exactly as much as one needs. After a life of going to the movies and about a year and a half of thinking and writing about it, I've realized, the core of moviegoing is its value as a habit. And having an unlimited usage model (whether it's a library card or a monthly internet fee) is crucial to nurturing a habit.