|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012
|
System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi
Posts: 215
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 09-27-2011 05:29 PM
Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012
Source: hollywoodreporter.com
quote:
Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses, beginning in May 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.
There’s no word yet as to the reaction of exhibitors, but many theater owners feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too.
"This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy," Sony worldwide president of distribution Rory Bruer said.
The price tag for 3D glasses is no laughing matter — studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used). Sony has two high-profile 3D tentpoles headed to theaters next summer — Men in Black III and The Amazing Spider-Man.
Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million.
Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).
Such a system is already in place in a number of foreign territories, including the U.K., Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are now used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars), and the habit could be hard to break.
The majority of 3D glasses are provided through RealD, which controls the majority of the 3D market domestically through its 3D projection systems.
Several years ago, when digital 3D was first emerging, it was unclear who would pay for the glasses. In an effort to encourage movie theaters to convert their screens to the emerging format, Disney told theaters it would cover the cost.
Soon, other studios started following suit, but top executives say it was never their intention to make it an indefinite policy. And at least one studio, Fox, tried to stop paying for the 3D glasses, but was met with stiff resistance from exhibitors.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-27-2011 06:42 PM
quote: Frank Cox
I've never understood how you can police Dolby glasses.
The hardest part is education. Since all the theatres in Billings are RealD, it's been a chore to get people here to realize that they have to give the glasses back. It's relatively easy for us though because we funnel everyone through one set of double doors at the end of a movie, and position somebody at each side of the doorway to collect the glasses.
The funniest thing is Dolby's training video, where they tell you to "listen for the number of glasses that are dropped into the collection bin. Two people -- two glasses going in. (Clunk, clunk)" Well, what about the family of five where Mom has all of the glasses and chucks them in all at once? You just have to watch everyone and learn to spot those glasses. I've gotten very good at it, actually.
To educate everybody, we use a combination of a sign in the concession stand, the reminder on the screen, and our actual collection bins which have a "please return your glasses" sign on them. Our final line of defense is my wife, who will go after anybody who's walking out with glasses.
We don't put anyone at the emergency exit because nobody ever uses it...it empties into an alley and would be a lot farther walk for anyone to get to their car.
We don't really have a problem with people leaving them in the auditorium, but when that happens it's easy to find them. If someone admits to leaving them down there, we grab a flashlight and ask them to show us where they were sitting and we go get the glasses.
Since people know we're serious about getting them back, we've only had a handful of glasses (maybe about 10) get damaged or stolen in the past year.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-27-2011 10:52 PM
Frank, Dolby makes you a pile more money.
Dolby now has two styles of glasses...the real glass type (CAT 834) and the plastic 3M type (CAT 832).
The Cat 834 as a LIST price of $17.00, the Cat 832 has LIST price of $12.00. Street prices are typically a little less (a buck or two).
If you do the math using the Cat 832 (most popular nowadays, by far). If you sell on average 100 tickets a day (per 3D screen)...certainly some days are going to be much higher and, unfortunately, many days will be lower too...but average 100 tickets/day...you'd have to loose over $1,500 pairs of glasses per year if you paid LIST, to make up for what Real-D is charging most folks.
Our Dolby 3D customers claim that their shrinkage due to theft/damage is such that the average pair gets about 250 uses rather than the rated 500.
As Mike stated above....most will corral the audience and have a person there as they leave as the first line of defense and that normally catches them all...the second line is to have the theft barriers that sound an alarm (like a shop lifter) since the glasses have anti-theft tags in them.
If your 100 ticket/day theatre with Real-D has to start paying for glasses, as Sony is indicating...with a typical $3 upcharge (with some already charging more and some are less...depending on your town)...your total 3D profit for 1 year on that screen will be $365.00 once Real-D and the glasses distributor take their cut.
With Dolby? About $43,000 profit...even with half of your glasses not going the distance. It isn't even close.
Your best bet for throw away glasses, if you are paying for them is Master Image...your annual profit would be $18,615. Master Image is the most profitable if you are not paying for the glasses...In less than a year, you'll have made more money that you would have had to pay to Real-D in their deals.
Do the math.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 09-28-2011 11:57 PM
quote:
NATO Slams Sony for 3D-Glasses Charges (Updated)
By Brent Lang at TheWrap
Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:16pm EDT
(Updated: 4:13 p.m. PST)
The National Association of Theater Owners slammed Sony Wednesday for its attempt to pass off the costs of providing 3D glasses on moviegoers and exhibitors.
The trade organization labeled the move "insensitive" given the economic woes gripping the country.
"Sony’s actions raise serious concerns for our members who believe that provision of 3D glasses to patrons is well established as part of the 3D experience," NATO said in a statement.
NATO said Sony was reneging on a prior agreement to pay for the glasses.
But Sony spokesperson Steve Elzer said NATO gets it wrong.
"NATO’s statement that it has been 'understood' that distributors would always bear the cost of 3D glasses is incorrect, because there never has been any such agreement," Elzer said in a statement. "In fact, we have been speaking with people in the industry for a long time about the need to move to a new model, so this certainly comes as a surprise to no one in the business."
Elzer said that the studio invited theater owners to engage in a "collegial dialogue" with about the issue at ShowEast next month.
Also read: Sony to Theaters: Buy Your Own 3D Glasses
Shares of RealD, the 3D movie company, dropped nearly 15 percent to trade at $10.42 on Wednesday after Sony announced its plan.
Sony has told exhibitors that starting in May with the release of its pair of 3D tentpoles, "Men in Black III" and "The Amazing Spider-Man," it will no longer pay for the rose-tinted spectacles.
It wants exhibitors to work out the cost with moviegoers.
In it's statement, NATO said press reports indicate that Sony wants audience members to buy their own glasses, but in reality, the studio wants to move the expense of providing glasses off their own balance sheets and doesn't particularly care if the cost is borne by theater owners or ticket buyers.
At a cost of about 50 cents per ticket, 3D eyeware can eat up $5 million or more for a movie that grosses over $100 million.
Moviegoers pay a premium of around $3 for 3D films, and that extra gravy is then split between theater owners and studios.
In 2009, Fox tried a similar gambit with the release of its third "Ice Age" film, but bowed to pressure from theater owners and abandoned its efforts to push off costs.
NATO said that theater owners had agreed to take on the expense of overhauling their theaters for 3D movies with the understanding that distributors would handle the cost of providing glasses.
"Any changes to that understanding must be undertaken through the mutual agreement of both sides of the business," NATO said.
NATO closed its missive with a warning. The group told Sony that the disappointing numbers for its premium video on demand trial with DirecTV -- in which the studio and others offered movies to renters eight weeks after their debuts and over the fierce objections of NATO -- was evidence that exhibition needed to be on board with any fundamental business changes.
"Sony would be well advised to revisit its decision," NATO said.
So, what's the big honk why SONY can't play ball like the other studios? They need to go back to Home/Car Audio and Electronics and stay out of the cinema business if they can't do it right.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic