Screenvision Gains Ad Volume: Calls In-Theater Ads Increasingly 'Relevant,' 'Vital'

[Jim Cassedy]

FD_10171927.jpg
☞ Advertisement From Film Daily - Oct 17, 1927

[John Eickhof]

Jim, that's a great old ad! remember 'prize baby of the motion picture industry' ? national's slogan from back then...to digress back to the original topic, as for what advantage or profit is derived from using an advertiser like 'screenvision' or 'before the movie', as an operator of smaller town theatres and my bias against paid ads, I could never see much of a financial gain from running ads, I know that if you have say 100 plus screens, running ads may add to the financial coffers, but I remember hearing negative input from patrons way back when we exhibited a rare commercial ad in the 70s, of course i'm the dinosaur here in that I was running film, so splicing in the ads etc added to make up time and was a pain in the arse and changing ads mid run, but at l least now it's a matter of plugging in a thumb drive and clicking the mouse, I know when I was managing a 13 screen, we received ad pkgs weekly and were instructed to program them promptly as there were checkers assigned to see it we had them on screen! ( worse than the film distribs!) at least our ads were programmed to run 15min ahead of scheduled trailer/feature start times so in light of how many people get the theatre at or after advertised show time, the ads fell on empty auditoriums most of the time! So I just can't see any reason to display ads on the screen that people pay money for...just my two cents...

[Harold Hallikainen]

That 1927 ad is great! But notice that it says "Trailers sell seats." So, it's promoting trailers about upcoming movies that will "fill the seats." Not ads for TV shows or cars.

[Mike Blakesley]

Pre-show ads are a brilliant example of how nonsensical and unhealthy the exhibition industry really is.

That's nonsense. Exhibition certainly has its problems, but it's not because of ads. I would say the problems it has these days are mostly having too many screens to fill with not enough movies, combined with being screwed by the too-short video window. And, it's because of stupid management by the chains.

Ads are EVERYWHERE. They are a fact of life. While I would prefer theaters not to have ads, they are a good source of income. Why should theaters be the only business on the planet to be completely free of ads?

Go to a concert. You'll see ads plastered all over the stadium, sometimes even on the performers' clothing. And you might have paid ten times to see that show as you would for a movie.

Even Netflix's "ad free" version isn't really ad free -- they start bugging you about what to watch next by playing trailers you don't want to see, before the end credits of the thing you're watching are even 10 seconds done.

I don't mind ads in front of the showtime if they're entertaining and/or well made. Here, we show a five-minute package of ads for our local businesses (no national ads). Do I wish we didn't do it? Sometimes, but we get no complaints about it because our customers know that we make some dough off of them and it helps us stay profitable. In the 15+ years we have been playing ads, I have had exactly zero people tell me they won't go to movies anymore because of the ads.

I've had far more comments and questions lately about Disney than anything else. People are calling and asking if a Disney movie is OK for their kids! I used to put "Disney's" or "From Disney" on the marquee, but I stopped doing that because it's actually a turnoff for some folks! I never thought we'd see that day.

As for YouTube, TikTok, etc. I like YouTube. It's basically another TV channel. I pay for the premium version because I got tired of the ads interrupting the thing I was watching at stupid places that made no sense. I have TikTok on my phone. I have spent a certain amount of time fooling around with it, but overall think it's stupid. Just when you get into something, it's over and on to the next similar thing, and the process repeats. I guess I'm just not the type that enjoys 30 second bites of entertainment. Gettin' old, gotta face facts I guess.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I don't mind a few trailers in front of movies, quite to the contrary, I would miss them if they went away. But, please, don't overdo it and for your regular visitors, make sure you rotate your trailers on a regular basis so I'm not looking at the same trailers for months-on-end.

As for ads... I know they're used to prop up the already thin margins of exhibitors, so I usually tollerate them. That being said, I think some theaters overdo it with ads and many aren't using them to their full potential. Why do you have me watching the same crap that's being broadcast on TV, YouTube and everywhere else? What about trying to get local businesses to advertise on your screen? DCI has enabled those possibilities, so use the powers that you've been given!

[Darin Steffl]

We only show local ads at our Theatre. No nationals. It feels more personal and local business owners and employees like to feel the fame of seeing themselves on the big screen.

The ads are mixed in with pre-show reminders like no phones, please throw away trash, etc. Focus Screen Media and 1Better are two small ad companies that will sell ads to businesses in your area and give you a cut of the sales.

If you have the time and skills to make your own ads, I'd suggest doing it yourself.

For trailers, we always do 4-5 trailers which feels like the sweet spot. Any more than 5 is way too long.

[Frank Cox]

I usually do one or two trailers. Three is my absolute limit.

[Allan Young]

Yes, I'm always amazed it wasn't in the US first.

This is me just finding out that cinema advertising in the States is a relatively recent thing. The cinema advertising firm Pearl and Dean was formed way back in 1953, so it's been around a long time in the UK.

There's a lot of nostalgia for some of the old cinema ads too.

Well, you definitely got me all nostalgic!

The ones I remember the most were the elaborate fag ads. With TV advertising banned in the sixties, the tobacco companies piled a lot of cash into cinema ads instead.

There's this one, directed by Hugh Hudson a few years before Chariots of Fire. At the time (1978) it was the most expensive commercial ever produced. The "punchline" refers to a widespread billboard campaign which was launched before the advert appeared...

Then there's the Silk Cut adverts. The first Zulu spoof one was directed by Alan Parker after he'd made Midnight Express and Bugsy Malone.

And just before the cinema ad ban in 1986, they came out with this rather expensive looking last hurrah. The curtain was apparently nearly a mile long.

[Mike Blakesley]

We usually run 3 to 5 trailers, depends on the popularity of the movie. The only time we run less than 3 is if there is almost nobody in the building, in which case I might skip over the last one. If it's a blockbuster I might put on one or two more just so we can start on time and give everyone time to get concessions and to their seats. The last thing I want is for the feature to be starting and people still in the lobby, especially if they arrived by the showtime. If that happens, often they'll just opt to skip the concessions.

My wife went to a 7:00 movie at an AMC a few weeks ago and said when she went into the auditorium about 6:45, there were ads running, but there was no sound. So she went and told somebody the sound wasn't working and they said "Oh it's OK, the sound comes on a little after 7:00." Sure enough, as soon as 7:00 hit, the sound came on in the middle of the first trailer.

THAT'S the kind of idiocy that this industry should be working on solving.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Ads are EVERYWHERE. They are a fact of life. While I would prefer theaters not to have ads, they are a good source of income. Why should theaters be the only business on the planet to be completely free of ads?

To get back to my original question, that no one has answered yet, please define what you consider "a good source of income". How much do you make per show/day running ads on your screen? Does it justify the (admittedly minor) additional costs to project them?

Edit: And as to your question of why should theatres be the only business on the planet free from ads? Simple, really. People DO NOT go to a theatre to see ADS, they go to see a MOVIE. (And sometimes the TRAILERS for upcoming movies.) I do not listen to radio anymore (or watch network TV) mainly because I am sick of all the stupid ads (Medicines with side effects worse that what they are trying to cure and the endless boner pill ads are the worst). For a long time the theatre was the ONLY place where one wasn't subjected to ads. WE need to get back to that business model.

You are in a rare location where the people are more polite and laid back (kinda like the folks here in Idaho) so I am not surprised that you get no complaints. The fact that you are sticking with local businesses is a huge plus, and likely the reason you aren't getting complaints.

Now, what would happen if you went the ScreenVison route, with non local businesses and trash like Tik Tok (which you admitted you tried and found to be stupid.) I think even your regulars would start to complain.

I stand by my original position that ads are not worth it, and could (if not chosen carefully like Mike does) alienate your customers.

And Mike, you are correct that issues like the Mouse House's wokeness and sloppy presentations like your wife experienced are bigger issues.

[Mike Blakesley]

I agree that ads are a pain, but they're not going away. Even here in small town USA, I don't go to a ball game to see ads either, I go to watch the kids play, but there's a wall of ads staring me in the face from across the field all through the whole game. If you go to a stadium to a pro game (and pay $50 to $1000 for a ticket) you get bombarded with ads from the moment you sit down. They're on the scoreboard, along the sidelines, on the players uniforms, sometimes right on the field. Hell, even the name of the stadium is an ad.

We did have "national" ads for a while back in the film days. There was a company called Parrot Productions or something, that would send the ads on film and we'd splice them in. It was a pain. We didn't get any complaints then either... but the thing that irked me was, the ads were constantly for stuff that was either opposite of what we sold (like a Coke ad when we sell Pepsi) or stuff that was totally inappropriate to our area, like a Mercedes Benz ad. We quit that after a year or so.

We don't make a lot of money from our ads but they do make two or sometimes three of our bank payments every year, so yes, they're worth it. They also serve the purpose of letting me know that our picture and sound are working properly before the actual show starts, so there's that.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I think that, in overall, ads are more tolerabele if they are relevant, because they may even be helpful in some cases. I consider most cinemas as an extension of the community they operate in and most cinemas indeed serve a local crowd. So, serving up locally, relevant ads, at least for me, is far less annoying than irrelevant, big-brand ads. Knowing that a restaurant has a new menu may entice me to visit them, much more so, than that an Mercedes Benz ad will trigger me to buy a new car from them...

One of the most extreme forms of ads I've encountered was in a cinema in Torquay in the U.K. It's been a year or 25 since I visited that place. They still had intermissions in every movie they played, but they actually played ads before continuing the movie. Also, the Belgian Kinepolis chain managed to serve up 25 minutes (!) of trailers and ads before FINALLY starting the feature during my last visit of one of their theaters. Now, that's what I call excessive.

[Steve Guttag]

... That's nonsense. Exhibition certainly has its problems, but it's not because of ads. I would say the problems it has these days are mostly having too many screens to fill with not enough movies, combined with being screwed by the too-short video window. And, it's because of stupid management by the chains.

Ads are EVERYWHERE. They are a fact of life. While I would prefer theaters not to have ads, they are a good source of income. Why should theaters be the only business on the planet to be completely free of ads? ...

I'm just quoting a portion of your posts as a representation, not for these specific points. The gist is, Ads are a fact of life; everyone does it; theatres shouldn't be excluded from that opportunity to get some additional income. Does that pretty well sum it up? (TL;DR in today's lingo).

I don't disagree with ANY of your points, in terms of what theatres can (and do) do. If I owned a theatre, I wouldn't run ads/commercials (and I don't consider Previews to be ads...they are ads for other industries, but not ours).

Ads have two areas, specific to cinemas, against them, in my opinion.

1. People don't like to be advertised to. As such providing a haven that is ad-free is a selling point. This is particularly true given the perception that cinemas are a [very] expensive means to see a movie and the perception that they have paid to see a particular product (the movie) and not be used as advertising fodder. So, for immediate concerns, ads are a put-off and there is a non-zero percentage of people that will not attend cinemas where ads contribute (though I doubt are the sole reason) to their reduced or lack of cinema attendance.
2. There is a long-term erosion effect that is linked to item 1. As people are put-off by how cinemas operate, including ads, this will contribute, at a non-zero level to losing potential patrons.

A problem with figuring out the pros/cons of cinemas running ads are it is impossible to determine the real impact. That is, if you were to stop running ads tomorrow, would overall attendance go up? If you were to promote that your (in the general since, not just Mike's theatre as every local will have different feelings towards how a business operates) was "ad-free" would that entice people to come to the cinema(s)? You can't really poll for such information because what people say and what people do are often not the same thing. How many times have people wanted something made or done and never really supported it? About the only concrete number a cinema has is how much money the ads bring in. How does one measure their impact on attendance versus normal viewing habits?

There are also graduations of ads. I guarantee you that ads before the posted start time will have little to no impact on attendance. Ads after the start time will have a negative impact on customer satisfaction. And, ads that separate the trailers from the feature (last thing before the feature starts), while more profitable from an advertising standpoint, absolutely will tick of the movie patron in both categories. The next step would be to put ads in the middle of the movie somewhere (not just product placement). I'd think most, in this era, would say that would be detrimental though most in the era I entered cinema claimed that they would never put ads in cinemas as it was another differentiation from the home experience, which over-the-air ad based TV was the norm.

The effect of ads on cinema attendance also is likely generational based too. The 18-35 year olds are probably less concerned than the elder patron that likely is coming to see more serious based movies than the latest action packed thing.

There are a lot of moving targets in this one. It is safe to say, however, the number of people that want to see ads in cinemas is a lot less than those that would prefer cinemas to be ad-free. As such, there is a negative impact on the business for customer satisfaction if the cinema runs ads. How much so? That is likely impossible to say but it is non-zero. It would probably take a large chain to promote an ad-free environment to see if it shifted movie attendance (not just from one chain to another but increased it overall).

There are many things an exhibitor does not have any control over (content of the movie, for example or the quantity of movies...remember in the fall of 2020 and into 2021?...if there aren't movies to show, there is nothing the exhibitor can do about that)...the decision to run ads or not is something that an exhibitor can do that impacts their business in one way or another. Ads don't benefit the show. So, what is the harm versus the profits to be had (long term and short term)?

[William Kucharski]

Martin's comment about everyone on their cell phones while the ads are playing makes me wonder if folks who play these ads before the shows are undermining their "turn off your cell phone" policies by having this kind of thing going on before the start of the movie.

If I can sit here and text while the Chrysler ad is on the screen why can't I text while the movie is on the screen?

Definitely.

As most regular theaters people are even on their phones during the opening credits.

In fact, a disturbing trend I've seen now is people get their phones out to take a photo or video of the title card on-screen which then they text/post to their friends so they know they're seeing a movie.

I see it more frequently at AMCs than Regals, but that may be coincidence.

[Martin Brooks]

I guarantee you that ads before the posted start time will have little to no impact on attendance. Ads after the start time will have a negative impact on customer satisfaction. And, ads that separate the trailers from the feature (last thing before the feature starts), while more profitable from an advertising standpoint, absolutely will tick of the movie patron in both categories.

In the theaters I attend (mostly AMC, but also occasionally a Regal or an Alamo Drafthouse) the stated showtime is ALWAYS when the trailers start. The ads run before the trailers and are mostly connected via the pre-show. I've never seen an ad after a trailer (aside from the Dolby or AMC snipe). While not showing ads would make for a much classier presentation, especially if soundtrack music was played as used to be the case (and obviously if theaters still had curtains), I really don't think the ads bother people much because the houselights are half on and people are talking to each other or on their phones.
Frankly, I'm surprised these ads are found to be effective (if indeed they are). While they are impressions, my guess is that recall is incredibly low. As far as how much revenue the ads generate for the theaters the chains' financial reports don't reveal that. AMC quotes Admissions, Food & Beverage and "Other". Ads are obviously included in "Other", but so can theater rentals and any other sources of income such as co-op advertising, etc., not that there's much of that today. In the first quarter of this year, "Other" constituted 9.6% of gross revenue at AMC. If that were all ads, it would work out to about $100K per theater for the quarter or $400K per year, so it is substantial (but we don't know how much of that is from advertising).

Screen ads are "relevant" and "vital"? What a joke. But it does sound like ad salesperson speak. I used to work with a guy who previously had been in the direct mail business. He tried to give me the same kind of line. He was pretty upset when I told him that in my apartment building there's a trash can next to the mailboxes and people throw all their junk mail into the trash because they don't even want to take it upstairs.

Having said that, there are creative ways to do ads. I think Coca-Cola has run contests where student filmmakers create Coke ads and those are usually pretty good and it's not an ad that you'd see on TV.