|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Tickets For Monsters vs Aliens in 3D - Your Bailout Taxpayer Dollars At Work
|
Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 03-20-2009 10:37 AM
The following article appeared in the Hollywood Daily (link below). Looks like AMC refused to go along with the deal (probably means the theatres had to kick something in towards the deal and AMC did not want to):
This is unbelievable. Though I suppose it was just a matter of time before the Hollywood moguls figured out a way to get their hands on some of that U.S. goverment bailout money, albeit indirectly. But why in the world are American taxpayers helping foot the bill to promote a big-budget 3-D DreamWorks Animation movie? Well, it appears the reason is because the president of the Jeffrey Katzenberg-led Hollywood animation studio just happens to be Bank of America's former Vice Chairman and CFO.
It took respected media analyst Rich Greenfield of Pali Research to uncover this staggering scheme (registration required). He found out that Bank of America was helping families to see Monsters vs Aliens in 3-D rather than 2-D at no additional cost when it starts playing in theaters on Friday, March 27th. And at the same time helping out the box office grosses of Katzenberg's DreamWorks Animation, a publicly traded company.
"Why Bank of America?," Greenfield asks in a report posted this morning. "We have not seen any formal announcement about the Bank of America/[DWA] promotion beyond an increasing number of consumers discussing the promotion link on Twitter. However, we find it odd that a bank that just received $45 bn [billion] in government aid is paying for consumers across the US to see a movie in 3-D vs. 2-D at no extra cost. We also wonder whether the presence of DWA’s President, Lew Coleman, helped DWA convince Bank of America to enter into the promotion, as Coleman is a former Vice Chairman and CFO of Bank of America."
Greenfield found a .pdf for next weekend's Bank of America offer which says it is limited to its customers (credit card, banking, etc). But he also discovered that the online system allows anybody to participate as long as they have an e-mail address. Consumers can receive up to 4 certificates per e-mail address to upgrade from 2-D to 3-D via the online registration form. However, Imax and AMC theaters are excluded from the promo.
"If MvA [Monsters vs Aliens] skews heavily toward 3D tickets due to Bank of America subsidizing the incremental 3-D cost (only valid on opening weekend), we believe the odds are increasing that MvA will outperform our opening weekend box office expectation of $55 mm [million]." Greenfield predicts.
This week, Pali Research calculated that Dreamworks Animation is getting an average 3-D upcharge of $3.18 for Monsters vs. Aliens as opposed to the cost of an average 2-D ticket. "While the 3-D premium was less than DWA management expected, we believe the real driver of the effective premium will be driven by the percentage of attendees who pay to see the movie in 3-D vs. 2-D (as we presume the 2,000 3D screens will be in greater demand than the 5,000+ 2-D screens)," Greenfield writes. "We are increasingly confident that there will be a significantly higher percentage of MvA attendees at 3-D screens, as Bank of America has apparently agreed to fund the incremental cost of a 3-D ticket."
According to Greenfield, the reward certificate provides a $2-$5 value, but he couldn't find a premium above $4.
What's incredible here is that DreamWorks Animation has been spending a fortune to market Monsters vs Aliens. The campaign included a widely seen 3-D tie-in with NBC during the Super Bowl broadcast on that network. I was told that DWA footed $9 million of the cost of that spot what with the cost of the NBC ad, the 3-D glasses, the technology, etc. I wrote back in January that it was a colossal waste of money. Because the movie looked like a mess.
But now it'll be U.S. taxpayers who'll give thumbs up or thumbs down to this deal.
web page
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-20-2009 02:32 PM
One of the replies on that page pretty much summarizes it all:
quote:
Taxpayer money going to subsidize the difference in 3D ticket price vs 2D ticket price? Are you kidding? Anyone saying this is just advertising or helping to stimulate the economy needs to brush up on their common sense. First off, Katzenberg is betting alot on this movie. They’ve been in a battle to get theater owners to upgrade to 3D Digital projection in theaters for the last year in anticipation for this movie. What this is doing is manifold: One it ensures people (mainly BofA customers) will see the 3D version at no additional cost of the 2D version, courtesy of taxpayers. Two because of this, this will indeed skew the numbers more towards 3D ticket sales. Three, this will give Katzenberg, and any other studio execs the necessary rallying cry to say that 3D is a success, not to mention it will deceitfully increase opening weekend sales in general because the “promotion” is only valid for opening weekend. The reason being that ticket sales on average drop anywhere from 50-90% after opening weekend. This as clear as freshly buffed waxed on the clear coat of a 2009 Bugatti Veyron right out of the production factory, which is what Katzenberg will be buying to reward himself for the success of Monsters vs. Aliens 3D.
To summarize, this isn’t about stimulating the economy, or aiding Bank of America to increase business. This is to ensure that Monsters vs. Aliens 3D will have higher than the below normal 3D ticket sales than it would have otherwise gotten on opening weekend. But more importantly, it will give studio execs the clout to pressure theater owners to upgrade to 3D Digital projection. This scheme cleverly advances Katzenberg’s agenda, plain and simple.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-21-2009 05:08 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
"Just advertising" is EXACTLY what it is and nothing more.
Well, can't blame the guy for thinking otherwise. After all, this would be (probably) the first case in history of a bank advertising by using taxpayer money to pay general public to watch a particular movie in 3D instead of the same movie in 2D.
So it may be not so clear to some who would prefer to see a more convoluted conspiracy behind it all.
It has been done before that companies would advertise in 3D movies by paying for ads printed in the 3D glasses, i.e., and thus indirectly subsidising the cost as the glasses would be given away for free by the theater to patrons in the past without a surcharge, so this would be not soo much different, I guess.
Still, not 100% clear cut, so I understand some people chose to buy another explanation rather than simple "straight advertising".
You advertise where you want, and in this case Bank of America would be advertising (if you call paying say $3 in your name to a theater/distributor advertising) if you go to a theater showing the movie in 3D as oppossed to one showing the same movie in 2D.
But if I were a movie theater, I would know how to treat Dreamworks material from now on (Hint: ![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif) ).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 03-21-2009 09:31 AM
quote: Julio Roberto
Well, can't blame the guy for thinking otherwise. After all, this would be (probably) the first case in history of a bank advertising by using taxpayer money to pay general public to watch a particular movie in 3D instead of the same movie in 2D.
Except the advertising didn't happen "by using taxpayer money." See, just because B follows A doesn't mean that A caused B. BoA may have started this advertising campaign but that doesn't mean that they did it because of the taxpayer money.
Further, companies do these kinds of prepaid check things for movies every year. In fact, this is actually a cheaper one since most usually are done with checks with your admission (up to maybe $7 or $9 of it) paid for whereas this is up to a mere $5.
Seriously, BoA probably would've done this without the bailout money. The author focuses so much time on the fact that the Dreamworks head used to be at BoA and automatically assumes that means he's doing trickery to get bailout money, yet somehow missed the idea that he could simply be getting his old buddies to do a business deal.
Seriously, this a non-story. Bank does pre-paid check promotion and then gets money for a bailout. *yawn*
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic