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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Being honest with your customers? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Being honest with your customers? Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 11-30-2012 12:14 PM                        I believe this person is not being totally honest with their customers. "On 3-D: we opted out of 3-D. The number one reason is that having it as an option makes the film companies crazy and they demand our screen keep their pics up for far too long and they bully and threaten if we want to bring in another film. They use it as a chess piece to block other films. It turns a crazy relationship 300% crazier. Also: 3-D would have added about 30K per screen. " Theater operator/owner name withheld Who agrees with the above statement? BTW, this operator is also fundraising for digital while receiving VPFs. They have not been forthcoming to their customers who they are soliciting that are receiving VPFs. If they hit their goal, they could very well make more money back in the form of VPFs and donations. And it is a for-profit theater.  |  IP: Logged Michael Putlack Expert Film Handler Posts: 187 From: Fort Collins, Colorado Registered: Sep 2011 posted 11-30-2012 12:40 PM                        I would think this owner is probably just more misinformed than he or her is a lair. But that is giving him or her the benefit of the doubt.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2012 03:38 PM                        The first statement, about 2.5 years ago when we first went digital, the film companies were indeed forcing the issue with 3D. If you had 3D capability they insisted you play their movie in 3D. So we had our machine set up to where we could play the 3D movies in 2D if we wanted to, but never used that option. About a year later they "saw the light" and began offering combo drives, and nowadays for single screens they "would like" you to give the premium showtimes to 3D but they don't really push the issue anymore. So...on the 3D movies we usually run the weekend shows in 3D and the midweek shows in 2D. As for the second part, I don't see a whole lot wrong with fundraising. He's going to have expensive upgrades and such that won't be covered by the VPFs, so he might very well need to sock that money away for the future.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2012 03:52 PM                        As long as being straight forward with his audience and he's not misrepresenting himself as a charity for which donations are tax-deductible he's not doing anything wrong fundraising. I know of at least one other for-profit theatre who did fundraising for digital. There are also theatres that set up non-profit, tax deductible "Friends of..." organizations to fundraise. As long as everyone knows how the money goes and where, I see nothing wrong.  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 11-30-2012 04:40 PM                        My problem with the fundraising is that if they hit their goal (which is very likely) they will have enough money to pay for all of their upgrades including sound between the fundraising and the VPFs. It is quite possible to make significantly more than the cost of the upgrades. Now if they had told their folks who were donating that are getting the VPFs then I have no issue. I know of no other for profit theater getting VPFs and fundraising at the same time. Anyone? As far as the cost of the 3d, my last quote for Dolby 3d was $20,000 and that included about 600 glasses.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 11-30-2012 04:48 PM                     Just because you are in a VPF program, doesn't mean you could afford all the upfront costs to convert. I would watch out if I were soliciting funds from the public as several if the VPF programs have language that specifically blocks such activity. I've even seen a theater that requires a 25 cent donation with every ticket sold that they don't report to the studios. They could easily find themselves in hot water over that...  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2012 06:06 PM                        Dolby 3D has decreased in price; maybe the guy is looking at an older quote. There's other things to consider with Dolby, too. The dishwasher and associated plumbing/electrical, not to mention labor to deal with it. It's just not for everybody. I have mixed feelings about 3D to this day...a lot of people love it, and it's cool to have, but a lot don't like it, and it adds a lot of work to the equation.  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-01-2012 12:23 PM                     quote: Mike Frese My problem with the fundraising is that if they hit their goal (which is very likely) they will have enough money to pay for all of their upgrades including sound between the fundraising and the VPFs. It is quite possible to make significantly more than the cost of the upgrades. Now if they had told their folks who were donating that are getting the VPFs then I have no issue. I know of no other for profit theater getting VPFs and fundraising at the same time. Anyone? Mike: With more than 5,000 theatres in the U.S. I'm sure you don't have info on all of them. Most small town theatres are seen by the residents as "their theatre" and they are not particularly interested in getting a tax write-off for their contribution. Since VPFs are a normal part of showing digital there is no reason for the operator to "open his books" to contributors. To say he doesn't have the funds to purchase the equipment is sufficient. It's the customers who benefit by keeping their local theatre open.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-01-2012 01:55 PM                        Probably best not to allow customers "to look too much behind the curtain." Nothing to hide, but very bad psychology. It IS entertainment after all. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 12-02-2012 08:03 AM                        Louis, I have never said open your books. Just be honest when you do talk about the financial aspects of your business. If you go to the public talking about how you are in dire financial straits to stay in business, you better be honest with folks. Let me rephrase the scenario a bit: I need $60,000 to stay in business. Can you (the public) help me out by giving me $35,000? vs. I need $20,000 ($60,000 minus $40,000 in expected VPFS) to stay in business. Can you (the public) help me out by giving me $35,000? (BTW, this theater was able to line up financing for the conversion before they started seeking donations.) Robert, You see no difference to the above? How about someone saying they need a $100,000 medical surgery to be able to live and would like to get $75,000 in donations. Would it matter if the person fails to mention that person has insurance that will pay for $60,000 of the $100,000 cost? I would not have an issue if this owner were to tell people that they are receiving a substantial portion of their conversion paid for by the VPFs and still ask for donations. But to profit for donations in a significant way by telling such a sob story (needing to spend $60,000 per screen to stay open)is wrong IMHO. Robert, I have followed theaters' fundraising activities quite extensively. Of course the most common scenario is a non-profit. There are a few more for-profit theaters but their success rate for donations is significantly less. Again I know of only one theater seeking significant donations (50% or greater of conversion costs) and getting VPFs. Please, if anyone knows of one, name it. I think the reason you do not see this happening if the ethical dilemma of asking for more money that you need. 3d costs: Can we agree that the $30,000 cost is exaggerated by at least 50%? Between Real3d's low upfront cost and the propensity for theaters to charge upgrade fees to pay for the 3d costs that $30,000 is greatly exaggerated no matter how you look at it.  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-02-2012 02:32 PM                     Mike: I've seen theatre owners express that the distributors don't like VPFs and are less likely to see those theatres in a favorable light. Bottom line: it means less money for the distributors when dealing with a VPS theatre. So I'd prefer to ask my community to help me than to take VPFs. Besides, community support is a lot better than paying bank interest rates. I suspect you work for a not-for-profit and are a little annoyed that a for-profit is using your tactic.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-04-2012 12:40 PM                        Small theatres have had some problems getting titles especially if they are marginally low grossers. The vpf makes this worse, since it reduces the amount the film company gets. Louis  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-04-2012 01:43 PM                        And some of the smaller distribs have had to get the theatres to sign VPF waivers because of the low gross nature of art product, which I'm sure the financiers look poorly upon.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 12-04-2012 02:13 PM                     quote: Andrew Thomas I've even seen a theater that requires a 25 cent donation with every ticket sold that they don't report to the studios. They could easily find themselves in hot water over that... Whether they report it or not, they could get themselves in hot water, as a *required* donation isn't really a donation.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 12-04-2012 09:51 PM                     Also, I just google searched the quote from the original post and it turns out that it is the same owner as the one I mentioned with the mandatory $.25 donation. Yeah, dude seems a little shady to me in my dealings with him via e-mail and another forum.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.