|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: AMC, Regal, Cinemark Theaters Probed By Justice Department For Antitrust Violations
|
Ron Yost
Master Film Handler
Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 06-02-2015 10:26 PM
After AMC and Regal, Cinemark gets DoJ notice on antitrust probe
From REUTERS, June 2, 2015:
quote:
Movie theater chain Cinemark Holdings Inc said it had received formal inquiries from the U.S. Department of Justice related to an antitrust probe, a day after larger cinema operators Regal Entertainment Group and AMC Entertainment Holdings received similar notices.
Cinemark said it received a Civil Investigative Demand from the DoJ's antitrust division related to an investigation on matters including joint ventures and film clearances. (1.usa.gov/1BIJJjL)
Film clearances are exclusive deals signed between large movie theater chains and film studios to limit the number of theaters allowed to screen certain movies, especially blockbusters. This keeps big movies out of smaller independent chains' reach, consumer affairs blog Consumerist said.
Houston-based Viva Cinema sued AMC Entertainment on April 20, saying AMC had coerced distributors to not licensing their films to it, which resulted in the theater's closure nearly seven months after its opening.
The DoJ is investigating whether the three top theater chains violated the Sherman Act, a federal antitrust law, and has requested the companies to answer its questions and produce documents.
Cinemark said it also received a second civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of Ohio. Both Regal and AMC received similar notices.
All three companies said they did not believe they violated federal or state anti-trust laws. (Reporting by Anya George Tharakan in Bengaluru; Editing by Don Sebastian)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 06-23-2015 10:11 PM
Didn't we go through this in the 1940s and 50s? By the time the Feds got around to fully implementing the consent decree, which forced the studios to spin-off the theaters, the theaters were under threat from television and thousands of them closed in the following years.
Had there been no consent decree, the big chains might have preserved the movie palaces and other theaters and kept them in better condition for many more years.
Now theaters are under threat from all the other ways that people can see movies as well as increasing real-estate values in some big cities. This is most certainly not the time to be pursuing anti-trust violations against them, even if there's some merit to the charges.
I'm no fan of the big chains, but put pressure on them and theaters will close.
In NYC, where most real estate is worth far more than what a movie theater can gross today, since 2001 we've lost 29.5% of the theatres and 16.35% of the screens. In 2001, there were about 15,000 people per screen. Now there's over 19,000 people per screen. The five boroughs of NYC are down to just 53 theaters (428 screens). By my estimates, there's about 100,000 seats for a population of 8.3 million people.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-24-2015 12:28 PM
When I worked at Cinemark, it was fashionable to use the word "product" when referring to the movies that were on the screen.
e.g. "We're getting good product, this summer."
Frankly, that's the most cockeyed world view I can imagine!
Your "product" isn't the movies! The product is your THEATER.
You sell your theater, your seats, your movie presentation, your popcorn and your SERVICE.
People can get movies anytime, anywhere, 24 hours a day. A theater is only open for 12 hours. When you think of your "product" in terms of the movies on your screen, you automatically put yourself at a disadvantage. You CANNOT compete with what is available to the consumer on a "movie = product" basis.
People in the theater business have been making the joke, "Theaters are just popcorn stands that also show movies," for as long as I can remember. The problem is that the theater business really is like that but people in the business seem to forget it.
As long as there are "clearance zones" theater owners are never going to change their attitudes and learn to compete on the basis of serving the customer.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 06-24-2015 07:10 PM
quote: David Buckley
This assumes, of course, that the patrons give a flying fuck about "quality".
True. They definitely care about cleanliness/customer service.
As far as quality, it has to be things they will notice. Certainly brightness, masking, screen size, clear audio etc. Also comfortable seats.
Let's put it this way. I can guarantee that if I opened a theatre across the street from any Regal and did everything right and provided great service, I would hurt their grosses significantly. They would either have to upgrade to my standards or be put out of business.
The stupid clearance zone model is what makes it extremely difficult to enter the business. It is a very hard sell to investors when you could open the best theatre on earth and all it takes is somebody opening one (even if it is a shit hole), 2 miles away and they will basically put me out of business just from lack of movies to show.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 06-24-2015 11:07 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
They would either have to upgrade to my standards or be put out of business.
They could indeed, put in better seats, better concessions, things punters notice. Certainly, the decimation of film (done right) for ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) hasn't killed exhibition.
Or, they could just drop their prices. Punters might notice that. As a start up, even with deep pocketed investors, they could certainly make your life uncomfortable, and price wars that end up as a race to the bottom can have bad outcomes...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-26-2015 05:22 PM
quote: David Buckley
This assumes, of course, that the patrons give a flying fuck about "quality".
To think otherwise drastically underestimates that paying customer.
I think that any customer worth wanting to patronize your movie theater does care about quality and other aspects of the moviegoing experience.
Sure, there are some people who don't care. They don't want to pay any more than they absolutely have to. Those people are also probably the people that put their feet up on the seats, text and talk during the movie, and then leave all kinds of messes behind for others to deal with. In other words, the kind of customer that's not worth having.
Everyone else, however, will respond to a high level of quality and showmanship. They may not have experienced it, so they may not know that they want it, but once they've experienced it, and once the less obvious things are pointed out to them, they will come to expect it, and what might have been acceptable in the past is now unacceptable.
A free market would allow me to operate a movie theater right between three other movie theaters, all next door, and allow me the opportunity to compete for customers on equal terms.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-26-2015 07:06 PM
There are pros and cons with either situation for nearby theaters, be it an allocation setup or both theaters being able to play the same movies.
In theory, an allocation setup can keep a major chain from building right next door to an existing, independently run theater and stealing away all content. But it only works if the allocation setup is FAIRLY diving major studio releases between both theaters. The allocation setup becomes very negative when a major chain (like AMC) starts gaming the setup, making back room deals with major distributors to cherry pick the best titles and denying the rival theater movies it should have been able to play.
LOOK Cinemas in North Dallas has definitely been screwed a few times by AMC since the AMC Village on the Parkway 9 opened. LOOK Cinemas is the better theater in every regard. It may even stay that way even after the AMC location gets its Dolby Cinema system installed.
Big chains can wreak havoc on the little guys even without an allocation arrangement. A small business owner who has his own modest yet nice theater might not stand a chance if AMC, Regal, etc. opened a $25 million multiplex right next door. The independent's most loyal customers might support him, but most people would flock to the big new theater without thinking twice. And that's even if both theaters were able to play the same titles. Profit margins are slim enough at movie theaters that any significant drop of customer traffic could be potentially devastating.
Balancing both perspectives I'm in favor of letting any movie theater play what it wants to play regardless if a theater next door is playing the same movie. In that scenario an independent operator can step up his game with customer service or other things to make his theater stand out from the typical big chain multiplex.
An allocation setup will allow a really crappy theater to survive many years past when it should have been demolished. I put up with that crap here in Lawton for several years.
The Cache 8 Theater (run by United Artists, then Hollywood and finally Wallace) was a rival to the Carmike 8 just over a mile West on Old Cache Road. I think the Cache 8 theater was first built in the early 1980s. The Carmike 8 opened the end of 1994. The Carmike 8 was a much better theater. The close proximity of the two theaters had both in an allocation arrangement. A lot of hit movies that would have been better on the THX-DTS screens at the Carmike 8 played in basic stereo or mono at the Cache 8.
Normally a certain studio such as Disney would release one movie at the Cache 8 theater and put their next release in the Carmike 8. All the studios would flip-flop their releases between the two. Most of the time it was fairly predictable where a certain movie would play. But sometimes the Cache 8 would get a good movie that was supposed to go to the Carmike theater. My theory was it had to do with seat count. As shitty as the Cache 8 theater was, it did have significantly more seats than the Carmike theater. I think this is why circuits like Cinemark often built rooms with rows of seats going right up to kicking distance of the screen. Get the seat count as high as possible to make the theater look impressive on paper even if no one is going to sit in those first 5 or so rows.
The Carmike 8 rarely ever got a favorable hop in the allocation arrangement with the Cache 8 theater. When it did I think it was over its THX houses. Its two THX-certified screens got it booked with the Star Wars: Special Edition movies and Episodes I-III prequels. Titanic did monster business there, selling out both THX houses from December into early April. The Cache 8 was turning into a bargain/2nd run theater when The Lord of the Rings was in its run.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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