Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New SONY policy for sub runs cinemas

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » New SONY policy for sub runs cinemas (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: New SONY policy for sub runs cinemas

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-30-2008 11:11 PM

Heard some blurb in the wind that SONY has a new policy pertaining to the sub-run theatres: that they won't let their films go to a sub-run house unless that house is charging half of the market tix value....

..anyone caught on, or heard on this?

Plus, if this is true, would other studios catch on to this idea?

| IP: Logged

Richard P. May
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 10-31-2008 10:23 AM

Wouldn't this violate the anti-trust policy that the distributor can't dictate admission prices?

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 10-31-2008 11:33 AM

Well, from my experience and what I've been told, Sony and to a lesser extent Paramount and perhaps other studios already follow a policy of standard market pricing for first run. If a theater's admission prices deviate substantially lower than the typical market pricing, the product may not be booked. I've mentioned issues about this previously, and another member here from a company in my region knows more about this than me, but my old theater has not booked a Sony movie since Spiderman 3, and at one point was denied booking a Paramount movie, supposedly because the $7 adult evening price was well below the market average of $9-10 for first run. The ticket price was raised to $7.50 and Paramount product suddenly appeared again. I am no lawyer (yet), so I don't really know what the legality of all this is, but the practical implication of what Monte is saying would be a direct shot at putting sub runs out of business.

This is stupid, because sub runs picking up big movies after their first run is pretty much over not only generates some additional box office, but it adds to promotion for DVD sales. I saw Wall•E for the fourth time recently at an historic sub run near me for $3, and if I weren't expecting to get the DVD for Christmas already, that would have just reinforced my physiological need to own the movie.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-31-2008 06:41 PM

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
my old theater has not booked a Sony movie since Spiderman 3, and at one point was denied booking a Paramount movie, supposedly because the $7 adult evening price was well below the market average of $9-10 for first run.

I think we went over this ground once before. I've never heard of any cinema being refused a booking for a movie except for the three old standard reasons: There aren't enough prints to satisfy the demand; the grossing potential of the theatre based on past bookings isn't enough to pay for the print; or the theatre hasn't paid its film rent in a timely manner.

What I have heard of is minimum per capita film rent. There is a minimum amount per admission that must be paid, regardless of the ticket price. So if that amount is (say) $3, then you have to pay that or more per admission even if your tickets are selling for $2. There's nothing illegal about that; it's just the studios pricing their product where they want to.

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 10-31-2008 08:22 PM

Mike, all I know is what I was told. There was a substantial disconnect between myself and the company's booker, so I don't know this to be fact and haven't presented it as such.

As for your three conditions, I doubt that there was a run on prints of Surfs Up (Sony) or Drillbit Taylor (Paramount). The theater did very well on all large releases, especially family fare such as what I have cited. And I can assure you that the company I worked for at the time was not back on film rent, but you'll just have to take my word for it I guess. And, suspiciously, we once again started booking Paramount product as soon as ticket prices went up. To me, these things suggest, but certainly do not prove, some kind of minimum pricing like I have described.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-31-2008 08:55 PM

It's difficult to overestimate the power of rumor and nth-hand information. Since Mike runs his own theatre, he's a pretty reliably source on this kind of stuff.

Galen, at what point in the release cycle did your theatre try to book those titles?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 10-31-2008 09:46 PM

Our problem is not quite the same but has stupidity written all over it. I run a campus cinema that screens films once only after about 6 weeks of release. We usually screen double bills.
We have one company that seems to not understand how a good double bill can improve the box office. We asked for a particular double and were told that both films were available but not together.

So we took neither.

I'd love to know what the producers think of their prints sitting on the shelf not being screened.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-01-2008 09:23 AM

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I doubt that there was a run on prints of Surfs Up (Sony) or Drillbit Taylor (Paramount).

On opening weekend, they take bookings and then make that number of prints plus a few more to cover bad reels, lost shipments etc. Those two weren't exactly smash hits but that doesn't mean there were thousands of prints just sitting.

I'm just saying there are probably behind-the-scenes reasons you don't know about as to why you weren't (and aren't) getting certain films. Management can say anything they want -- I've told people lots of times that we "can't get a print" when in reality I know that the movie in question would just bomb here, so we choose not to play it.

| IP: Logged

David Mann
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Bakersfield, Ca. USA
Registered: Aug 2008

posted 11-02-2008 01:02 AM

The studios have been price fixing for years by charging minimum per capita film rentals. So, If their minimum per capita for an adult ticket is $5.00 @ 70%, and your admission price is $7.00, your rental should be $4.90 per ticket sold. BUT, the studio will penalty bill you .10 cents per ticket. If that's not price fixing, I don't know what is.

Try doing something about it. They have all the money in the world and lawyers to file motions for 20 years to wear you out and bankrupt you with legal fees.

Maybe a BUNCH of independants should get together and file a class action suit against them.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-02-2008 10:54 AM

It sis not price fixing
If I sell or rent a product I set the price if that is $1.00 it is the purchasers problem to resell it at a profit so in a sense I dictate that it doesn't sell for less than $1.00
If the reseller sells it for less then it is at there loss

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-02-2008 11:14 AM

I am confused. Are the terms mentioned $5.00 per person minimum? Is there 70% of the gross over the $5 minimum. This sounds like the old guarantee against a percentage of the gross terms.

Are they saying, "we want $5.00 per person or 70% of the gross whichever is more?"

KEN [Confused]

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-02-2008 12:29 PM

David: This is NOT "price fixing." Price-fixing is a technical term, and generally speaking it is illegal. As such, you should really be very careful before you throw it around. People at Sony Pictures Entertainment might be justifyably upset with you.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "price-fixing" as

quote:

The result of an unlawful agreement between manufacturers or dealers to set and maintain specified prices on typically competing products.

Notably, price-fixing has to be between multiple vendors. A single studio cannot engage in price-fixing.

The Wikipedia page is also helpful, though of course, cannot be canonical.

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 11-02-2008 12:46 PM

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
Are they saying, "we want $5.00 per person or 70% of the gross whichever is more?"

Yes, Ken. In a situation where $5 was set as a per-capita admission (I haven't run into anything that high), you would pay the higher of the two.

quote: David Mann
The studios have been price fixing for years by charging minimum per capita film rentals. So, If their minimum per capita for an adult ticket is $5.00 @ 70%, and your admission price is $7.00, your rental should be $4.90 per ticket sold. BUT, the studio will penalty bill you .10 cents per ticket. If that's not price fixing, I don't know what is.

It is not price fixing. The studios are setting a minimum price for their product, just like the wholesale prices that any retail store pays, except for the percentage part. Even then, it's not that unheard of. You're welcome to charge anything you like. If the percentage applied for that week is below the per-cap, you get to make up the difference. If it's over, then the applicable percentage applies.

As with many other conditions in the studio master licenses, the minimum per-cap applies when they want it to apply, and they generally tell you when it's coming.

Can they get away with it? Probably. Locally, Costco stores were denied products from some manufacturer (I forget who it was), because their prices were so low. Costco sued, and lost.

This is all part of the game we play. The consumer does not have a right to see multi-million dollar productions for only a buck or so. We don't have the right to demand the product under those terms, even if it seems the only way we can keep people coming in our doors. The studios never agreed to be our loss leader, so we could sell more popcorn.

In my circle of conversation, some drive-in owners are unhappy that they can't get first-run product, on 3-day bookings, for $5 a carload. Why is that unreasonable? Probably because the studios see a carload as one person paying, and everyone else getting in for free. It's not much different than someone buying a ticket at an indoor, then opening up the auditorium exit and letting his friends in, but some owners don't see the resemblance.

Dog or not, the studios are providing the product that attracts people to our theatres... it's not just our popcorn. I don't begrudge their percentages... I just book more carefully. That's my part of the game.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-02-2008 08:08 PM

quote: Jack Ondracek
I just book more carefully. That's my part of the game.

..and the only game to play if you're going to stay one step ahead of the rest of the pack.

How many of us "veterans" remember when theatres played new movies on a two (Sun-Mon), three (Sun to Tues, Tues to Thurs, or Thurs to Sat), or four (Wed-Sat) day run in the olden days? And seeing a week run was a rare thing to have.

Course, those where when the concept of a nationwide saturation was unheard of, or when there were only a number of prints struck and it was an absolute rare thing to open those two cans and see "A New Print" inspection stickers that sealed the strings down on the wraps.

Also back then, drive-ins did open new movies as well in larger venues on the break.

But, interesting how times changed everything in the film release world.

quote: Jack Ondracek
The studios are setting a minimum price for their product

Isn't that like when studios ask for "up front" money for their movies before you can get their movie? Plus, each studio has their own rate to charge "up front?"

Is the 90/10 percentage thing still in effect, or has most everything gone to the aggregated rate system?

-Monte

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-02-2008 08:59 PM

To me it sounds just like they are after a "minimum" amount for the bother of sending the print out. Really... I don't know why studios bother with any location charging less then that any more... it can't be worth the cost involved with storing, maintaining, and dealing with the office end of distribution for 2nd run stuff.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.