|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: SWEENY TODD Too Expensive for Marcus
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-20-2007 10:24 AM
Frank...check out the law on Collusion. Wikipedia where defintions are subject to popular vote...
"In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market form of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion."
A Cartel (also illegal) is:
"A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among firms. Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there are a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition. Competition laws forbid cartels."
Now you may say..."BUT that is what the STUDIOS are doing!" Yeah, prove it. Form an oranization that sets prices and it is easy. If you have a bunch of independant people coming to same result, that is something different. If Wal-Mart sells a widget for $3.94 and the store across the street drops their price on the same widget to $3.94 (from $4.50)...did they collude or did the other store just want to try and stay in business? Now if you can prove that Wal-Mart and the other Store had a meeting to "set prices" that would be to their economic advantage (siffle competition that would lower prices), then that would be illegal.
So if all if the theatre owners were to, on their own, come to the conclusion that they need to have 50/50 boxoffice splits (from day one) with 1-week minimum guarantee play dates, not release the movie to other avenues [home video]for 1-year....etc or they wouldn't book the films...then the studios would probably move in that direction (or cut out theatre exhibition all together). But it would REQUIRE all to independantly to come to such a conclusion and that no one caves...it is this caving that has gotten exhibitors into their current situation of very poor boxoffice deals. One person will always give up a percent or so here and there when drives the market into the studios hands...they have the goods YOU want. There are not that many studios...it is easier for them to effectly get their price.
Now Regal and AMC would not need to collude since they are such massive entities unto themselves. Either one or if both independantly came to the conclusion that they wanted better terms, they have a much greater liklihood of getting it (and probably do) because they talk with much more screen power...losing either one would be a huge market loss.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|