my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "selling" theatre owners on upgrades (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: "selling" theatre owners on upgrades Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-14-2007 05:49 PM                        I've worked in more theatres than I care to think about that are still using lenses from the 1950s and 1960s and sound systems from the 1970s. This is bad, but I have not yet had much success in encouraging anyone to upgrade the older equipment. For those who have convinced theatre owners to upgrade lenses, sound systems, screens, etc., how did you do this? I have trouble trying to convince people to buy stuff when there is no direct effect on ticket sales. To date, I've tried to explain that audience expectations are based upon what people see in multiplexes and that most new multiplexes have new equipment and quality sound systems. I've also tried to explain that better presentation quality helps customers to enjoy their experience more and increases their desire to return in the future. I have also tried the "drug-dealer approach," where I loan equipment from my personal collection to show what an improvement would be made by upgrading. These methods have met with little success. Am I doing something wrong, or do I just always end up working for cheap theatre owners?  |  IP: Logged Michael Moore Expert Film Handler Posts: 188 From: Dover, DE / USA Registered: Jun 2006 posted 06-14-2007 06:29 PM                        I just recently landed a bid deal with our management. I stated that if we do not upgrade then we will be left in the dust. And that our current equipment will be harder and harder to maintain due to lack of parts. I also pointed out that we have patrons who actually care about quality and will be encouraged to return if we upgraded. Needless to say they believed every word I said. I am currently upgrading and it has been hard convening a board of directors the need to do so. All I can say is make a list like I did pointing out the pros and cons of keeping old equipment. Trust me the pros will shine through and show them what the difference is. I find they have no clue as to what quality is and its hard to explain why. I came to a compromise and showed that the projector was falling apart. I then slowly moved on to the lamp house and I found that once the ball was rolling the more I was able to upgrade good luck  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 06-14-2007 06:32 PM                        I suggest a more direct approach. I once had an owner who bought 3-4 Lexus (Lexii?) per year. Shouldn't your business (which is the source for the Lexus money) be treated with A LITTLE respect? Shame will sometimes work; otherwise a blitzkrieg of preventive destruction might. Louis  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-14-2007 06:55 PM                        Do these owners ever check out their competition? If not maybe you should take them on a field trip to a decent modern theater and let them experience the difference. (didn't AMC used to have a slogan something like "Experience the Difference"?)  |  IP: Logged Joel N. Weber II Expert Film Handler Posts: 115 From: Somerville, MA, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 06-14-2007 08:38 PM                     Have you got any good data on whether these theater owners believe that there would be noticable improvement from these upgrades? On the lens issue, I've seen presentations at a college venue that has an underlit screen, port glass that isn't optical glass, and (I believe) 1970s lenses, and I'm not sure I can tell the difference between that and the Boston Common multiplex. Maybe I can tell that Boston Common has brighter screens if I know to look for it, but that's about it. And operator quality can be a bigger issue than lens quality, I think: I once saw a presentation at a different commercial Boston area theater that I noticed was out of focus, which bothered me far more than an underlit screen with a 1970s lens and improper port glass. I tend to prefer to sit near the back of theaters and not wear glasses, though, and my experiences focusing 1970s lenses from the booth tell me that my glasses are indeed useful to me at better seeing slight focus problems from the booth. People's vision seems to vary a good deal, and it's possible that the differences between lenses from different decades are more clear to some people than others, and perhaps the theater owners are in the category of people who can't see the differences as well. You did talk about lenses even older than the 1970s, and I can't be sure that I wouldn't notice that a 1950s lens is worse. But I'm not sure you'd ever be able to sell me new lenses with the drug dealer approach. I don't understand why people would consider 1970s sound systems adequate these days, though. Then again, they probably could have been running magnetic sound in the 1970s and didn't bother. Are they running on a tight budget where they feel they cannot afford the upgrades? If so, and if they're a non-profit, you might see if you can figure out how to get grant money.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-14-2007 10:12 PM                     I find that you never shame a theater owner ever! Over time a theater owner will normally heed a suggestion for upgrades. Not all theaters can afford expensive upgrades nor necessarily to do them all at once. Sometimes a piece of old dying gear is all it takes... last one for me was a USL CS-10/100! They will become tired of its unreliability (Sony 2000) or unavailability of replacement parts. Sony is the best example of that with not a single FRB available of the D to A decoder board nor a single sprocket for the penthouse at present for the model 3000. Mark  |  IP: Logged Richard May Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1057 From: Floral Park, NY USA Registered: Aug 2004 posted 06-14-2007 10:19 PM                     Good thread Scott. It drives me nuts when I hear some of the replies I do from owners. One in particular that I service. It's a quad. They still all have Kelmar mono systems. The original balcony seats 300 or more. When I suggested they upgrade to at least stereo, the owner said....."No, the customers are happy with mono".  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 06-14-2007 10:37 PM                     To be perfectly honest, most of the gear can be refurbished. I have worked in to many places that have managed to squeeze first class results out of aging equipement, Ive seen old frosty lenses eventually put up first class results after months of daily cleaning. I've heard CP55s and early panastereos create great sound! What I find on average that the speakers tend to be the weekest link in most cinemas. Add some wings and backstage dampening (black tissue faced), cheak for damaged cones, and surround speakers must actually sound good. I have over the past 20 years enjoyed upgrading most of the cinemas that I have worked at, my secret has been by doing the cheapest things first, demonstrating that it doesnt take too much money to make a meaningful difference to the quality of the experience. Once the owner trusts you the budget tends to increase. Personally I feel the reason that owners tend to be tight on these issues, is that they all have a story regarding spending a fortune on some piece of equipment, and not noticing or seeing any difference except to the bank account! I have owners on tape discussing this very problem. A standard example is an owner wanting to upgrade the sound. The tech will sugest digital, new processer, new amps and new speakers! Yet its only the rooms acoustics that is actually causing the poor sound quality! ( BTW old altec equipment can be cheaply refubished, & to my ears outperform the standard bass refex designs today!) So if he spends a few hundred on backstage dampening, some timber for wings and sees a difference, they may continue spending money and next thing you know THEY are suggesting a digital processer ( yep a true story ) Over the past 15 years I have, custom built 3 complete cinema speaker systems, modified 10 others with acoustcs, new subs or surrounds ect. ( after the cinemas get new speakers, the owners usually get me to build them a home 5.1 system) Got filmguard installed in 2 cinemas. Organised 1 complete refurbishment of a cinema including 375 newer seats (creating leg room) repairing the speakers and adding sub bass, helped install the new projectors (second hand with less than 70 hours on them) Only costing aprox aust $5000 after selling the old 1930s seats! The audience reaction, word of mouth, created a noticable boost to the cinemas bank account. Modified the lighting for greater safety and less spill on the screen at the local IMAX, plus produced a dolby surround intro to welcome them for all australasian Imax theatres during the expansion years. Enough blowing of my own trumpet, Yes you can actually get these guys to spend money! Arguing that modern cinemas have better gear has never been sucessful approach for me, mostly because the punters onced blame the film not the venue ie that movie was hard to understand, not that Roxy cinema has poor acoustics!. The true competion now comes from home theatre where people wont miss the difference seeing the same movie within a 4 month period!  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-15-2007 12:41 AM                       "I find that you never shame a theater owner ever!" Mark, for one, I totally agree. There is a big difference between the owners personal money and style and that of his business. Fear and greed are all that will work in my experience. Pulling one of these two levers is most effective. It's as though they are attached directly to his nut bag.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-15-2007 04:03 AM                     Yes, I also agree with Mark's reply as well for those theatre owners are extremely staunch with what they've got and will actually make the public suffer in their theatres..and by suffering, I mean on how the entire theatre is operated as - which includes operational procedures, personnel attitudes and appearances, theatre appearance conditions, and the most is actual feature presentations....and these owners all care about is how they play with numbers and lining their pockets. But, it all due comes around. For the public knows where they can be treated well and will prefer the competition's theatres and then is when these owners finally begin to realize that they REALLY need to do something, like sound and picture improvements, replacing worn and/or broken seats..thinking of converting sloped houses to stadium and the like just to drum up the business that used to be there at the beginning, but their greedy and selfish habits have taken them to these lower levels of operation. Yet, all of these said improvements above can't bring back the public since the one factor is still missing..and that is the "magic of the cinema" - the atmosphere that needs to be there and presented by the employees and mgmt team themselves, and this all comes from the caring by the owners. Sorry, theatre owners: "the Buck stops with you." -Monte  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-15-2007 05:01 AM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Over time a theater owner will normally heed a suggestion for upgrades. This probably couldn't have been put better. I've had my drive-in for 20 years now. In that time, I've changed projector heads and lamphouses twice. I've gone from old Bogen PA amplifiers (back when we had window speakers) to our second set of FM transmitters... rudimentary audio processing to stuff that major markets use... and from no noise reduction to Smart boxes, to CP65s, and now digital and computer control. We started with Snaplites, found some pretty good Wollensaks, and now have Schneiders. None of this happened overnight. I had to pay for the theatre, raise a family (and put 3 daughters through college), and deal with upgrades and maintenance in other parts of the property... the snack bar, kitchen, restrooms, playground & boxoffice... all on a seasonal income. 20 years later, I'm still not finished... probably never will be. Things get done every year over the whole property. However, if I had a projectionist who only looked at what was being done with the booth, I'm sure there'd be pressure to spend more time in that one place.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-15-2007 07:45 AM                        Joel--if this is the college venue that I'm thinking of, then I'll comment that the sound quality (even though DTS) was pretty poor when I visited a couple of years ago. Admittedly, the room was not good and perhaps things have improved since then. Boston Common is decent, but they have top masking for scope in many (most?) houses and they have had serious flicker issues in most of my recent visits. Although my sample size is small, I think that the presentation is generally better at Regal (nee AMC) Fenway, but I wouldn't hold up either one as a shining example of quality, either. (I have never had any relationship with either of these theatres, except as a customer.) Jack--I think that the difference between you and the theatres that I'm thinking of is that you _did_ make incremental upgrades over time and you also understand the benefits of making them. I'm talking about places that haven't upgraded anything (literally) in decades and whose owners see no problems with that. I am constantly pointing out good deals on used equipment, but no one has bitten yet. Perhaps part of the issue is that venues that don't run film every night have a harder time justifying upgrades. In any case, it's tough to argue that exclusivity of product is not enough to keep customers coming through the doors. On the other hand, I hate having to explain why a film looked or sounded bad to customers and/or filmmakers.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-15-2007 08:30 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer and these owners all care about is how they play with numbers and lining their pockets. On the contrary, we have good customers that are also friends and I would give the shirt off my back to them. These are the customers that are doing VERY well yet are still constantly doing alot of upgrades to keep things in the best possible performance/condition. But.... We have actually discontinued servicing a couple of locations just because the owners are way too into being the ultimate cheapskates! One in Afton Wyoming that owns a Ford Dealership but who thinks the wealthy guy in Jackson should also cover his part of the travel expenses just because I'm near by. Actually I do have to go out of my way to go to Afton from Jackson Hole. Another guy in a large Central Eastern Idaho town that is sooooo cheap he buys used lamps from some dealer in Florida for a hundred bucks apiece and runs them till they won't ignite or till they explode. He always complains about lack of customers and buisness being slow... and the funny thing about one of his locations is that another customer of ours once owned it and had good grosses there. Neither of these are the type of customers any service person wants to have nor should have to put up with. We too have customers that are still all mono... buck houses and some running the theater more as a service to the local community and such, however all have been loyal customers and loyal customers are the best customers a dealer can have. Mark  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 06-15-2007 09:35 AM                        People like Jack are no issue.....continuous improvement will eventually solve all problems. Back on topic: how do you "move" someone who has prospered greatly evey year for the last 35 and who "doesn't have enough money to install stereo; replace the screen or lenses?" He obviously has the money and is doing sufficiently well enough to remove large sums of money from the theatre; has no debts. He just thinks Motiographs, 1940's lenses, etc are Ok enough. In effect, helping him keep old stuff going is actually enabling him to continue, at the expense of serving his customers. To be sure, all of us have "charity cases" who are not making loads of money. These are the places that get the hand-me-downs for free. Louis [ 06-15-2007, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Louis Bornwasser ]  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-15-2007 10:18 AM                       Of course there are all kinds of theatre operators and I like to work with the ones who give a shit about what they do for a living and what they serve up to the public. It's fun to embellish to make a point.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.