AMC Says It Will Show More Ads Before Movies

[Ryan Gallagher]

I mean it goes without saying, if the ad contracts are too restrictive, walk away or negotiate. Being dictated to how to run your own business by an ad company doesn't sound very fun. Owner operators should have full control, they are the eyes on the ground, and responsive to customer input.

[Terry Monohan]

Most theatres I attend that run ads have the overhead ceiling lights up above the screen way too bright and all the dull commercials have stray lights leaking on the top of the of the screen. Some cinemas have the sound turned way down on the pre show junk and then blast you on the first movie trailer. I see very few people even looking at the pre show ads most are talking or on their cell phones.

Only one ad out of ten have any sort of entertainment value to keep my interest and plus they even repeat the worst ads to insult you a second time. The car commercials are the worst.

If I had paid to run ads and checked out all the bad viewing pre show ads I have seen over the years I 'd pull the commercials or make the cinemas take out the first row of ceiling lights or put in a smaller watt bulb.

There is notihng worse to see stray light or a gray image when It should be dark black.

Many exit green lights are also put too close to the screen and leak onto the sides of the screen not only during the ads and trailers but the whole movie also. Do any of the big cinema circuits even care about movie presentation.

A few cinemas lately I have seen have no lights on the exit signs red or green. May be a code violation in certain cities. Not so good If you have a emergancy and do the exit doors even open from the inside? A few years ago in San Francisco my friends and I found in a dark movie theatre the exit doors were chained locked from the inside even though the exit signs had a bright green light during a movie. I had to track down the manager in the candy counter to get them unchained .

[Marcel Birgelen]

As much as I don't like ads, I don't exactly understand the vitriol toward them when it comes to movies. After all, advertising is everywhere else, including places it didn't used to be. Go to Disney World, spend $150 per person for a day at Epcot, and you'll see Test Track, presented by Chevrolet, and you're forced to walk through a huge Chevy display on the way off the ride. Etc etc. Nobody avoids going to Disney because of sponsored attractions.

There is a distinct difference though... The sponsors of those sponsored attractions in Epcot are, mostly somewhat relevant and often adapted to the circumstances, which makes it far easier to tolerate. I'm also not really disturbed by a "Hosted by Coca Cola" sign at Casey's Corner, as it's not really in your face and it fits the actual theme.

I'm drawing a line though... I visited a theme park once, where they were blasting actual ads on the PA and monitors for some junkyard discount store in the queue of a western themed rollercoaster... I thought that this was extremely obnoxious, to the point that it heavily counted towards the reasons I've avoided that place like the plague ever since. And it wasn't like they'd discounted entry prices or profiled as a low-cost park. For what they actually had on offer, the entry price was rather steep. I guess it's this kind of practices why they bottom out at 3.1 on TripAdvisor and 4.0 on Google. While other, similar sized theme parks in the region easily score 4+ on TripAdvisor and 4.5+ on Google.

I tolerate commercials in the cinema, because I know that a lot of cinemas are just hanging by a thread, but I don't think that the solution is showing more of them... I'm paying premium tier for e.g. Netflix. If they'd started playing commercials, I'm sure I'd pull my credit card authorization in a second. I'm pretty sure there are lots of people thinking the same about ads in the cinema. Most of those cinemas also offer reserved seating, so what they're achieving is that people will start arriving even later to the show, in order to skip as much of the pre-show as possible.

Talking about Netflix and ads... It actually brings this particular and quite recent Black Mirror episode to mind. It's a perfect example what "enshitification" is doing with our everyday experiences.

Getting back to ads in the cinema: I almost always prefer the local, independent operator, not just because I want to sponsor small, local businesses, but also because they tend to show less of those dreaded ads.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Most of those cinemas also offer reserved seating, so what they're achieving is that people will start arriving even later to the show, in order to skip as much of the pre-show as possible.

You make a good point there about reserved seating, maybe this was actually what contributed to the “race to the bottom” and the consideration of starting to use the “premium slot” after trailers and before the film.

The less people see the ads the less the ad contracts are willing to pay, and it becomes a feedback loop of placing more and more ads to claw back the same ad revenue.

[Ryan Gallagher]

At my college there was a small mall below an off campus dorm I lived in... it hosted a 5 screen plex of very intimate small screen rooms. Dobie Theatre. I remember it fondly, saw a ton of films there, it hosted the blockbusters as well as a ton of art-house type releases. It also had the quirkiness to have each screening room decorated with a "Theme" more like a set designer would, I remember and Egyptian room, and a Jungle themed room, but forget the others.

Cinema history has so many great "settings", seems like a fun way to do advertising more memorably would be to take an approach like room themes or atmospheres.... you could seek a business sponsor for each room (and the cost of doing the redecoration), and for their sponsorship they get their name attached to the room name, and incorporated into the walkin slide, provided they keep up the sponsorship. If they quit you offer it to someone else who can take their place in the branding, or they can go all out and redo the theme again.

Maybe they get an employee perk out of it too, any film screening in "their" room is heavily discounted for employees, or they get employee nights.

One can dream anyway. To be clear I don't think the Dobie did it via sponsorships... they just did it cause it was FUN! But it aligns with historic concepts of theatres having sponsors that Steve cites.

At least from my ad-hating perspective, a screening or room underwritten/sponsored by a single entity, with appropriate static on screen or in room branding, is far more tasteful (and perhaps memorable) than a barrage of low budget off-topic ads.

[Mike Blakesley]

Just raise your ticket prices by one dollar across the board and eliminate the ads before all shows.

I have a feeling if we took a poll, about 95% of the people here would say they'd rather we keep the ads. They are all from local businesses, which helps. I've never had so much as one even slightly negative comment about them, never a Facebook comment, never a mention of them in a review, etc. and we've been doing it for about 9 years. On the contrary, we get regular inquiries about "how can I get my business on the screen?"

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

As much as I don't like ads, I don't exactly understand the vitriol toward them when it comes to movies. After all, advertising is everywhere else, including places it didn't used to be. Go to Disney World, spend $150 per person for a day at Epcot, and you'll see Test Track, presented by Chevrolet, and you're forced to walk through a huge Chevy display on the way off the ride. Etc etc. Nobody avoids going to Disney because of sponsored attractions.

Interesting... I watched a show a few weeks ago on just that. Going to Disney for $150 a day. The family of four in the show ate three meals at all the least expensive places and their food bill was more than that. Admission was almost over $400 for the family, or $119 per ticket. Parking cost $30 a day. So, please let me know how to go to what is really now Eiger World or Epcot Center for just $150 a day, because we have nicer theme parks here in Tennessee. Thanks! PS, I went the year after it opened and it cost about 150 then for 2 people minus food which I have long forgotten about, that was 1972. Perhaps I should have worn my Mickey Mouse Club Hat...

[Mike Blakesley]

I was just referring to the ticket prices, which range from around $120 to $150 depending on the day and time. There are lots of ways to avoid or reduce most of the other costs.

Food: You can bring in your own cloth cooler and have a picnic. (They used to allow coolers inside the park...if they don't these days, you can picnic outside the park on the grass.)
Parking: There's no need to bring your own car. If you stay at the Disney hotels you can use their transportation to get around, or take an Uber to go off-property.
Souvenirs: There's no need to buy anything. Take pictures, they're the best souvenir of all and cost nothing. We like to buy refrigerator magnets of places we've been - cost, usually around $5.
Water: Disney will give you free cups of water on request. (It's required by law in Florida, any foodservice place has to supply free water on request.)
Lines: You can avoid the longest lines by arriving early in the day, staying late at night, or going at slower times of the year. Nobody is forced to pay for the skip-the-line upgrades. Anyone who goes at the most crowded times of the year, well, that's on them. (Hint: Avoid school vacation times.)

I have always wanted to go to Dollywood, they have some kickass roller coasters there. I can't say whether it's nicer than Disney since I've never been there, but if you haven't been to WDW since 1972, there are probably at least 20 billion dollars worth of changes and upgrades and new attractions you haven't seen.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Disney parks never have been a budget destination and I think that's fine. Still, in the spirit of Walt Disney, his parks shouldn't only be attainable for the elite and for lots of people, it feels like Disney is doing everything possible to make it that way. What people are complaining about is that they hiked much of the prices and degraded the overal service level. Free Fast Pass is gone, replaced by a "pay to play" system. Entertainment options have been canceled, perks reduced, etc., but prices have been jacked up considerably.

It's hard to beat the theming and technological perfection of an international media and leisure empire with deep pockets and almost a century of experience at the highest level in the industry. So, if you want to have the highest quality theming, the most cutting edge technology, then it's Disney or maybe Universal. But what especially the newer Disney stuff lacks in authenticity, Dollywood certainly delivers... No, the theming isn't as perfect, the attractions are technologically on an entirely different level, but it feels honest and still can be a great day of fun. Dollywood feels like a throwback in time, when not everything was a franchise and not every ride ended with a mandatory tour through the gift shop. I'd say if there is one must-see park in the U.S., it's actually Dollywood. Disneyland has been copied like five times now over the world, so that concept is no longer unique... I'd use include Epcot in the list, but over the years and after the many make-overs, Epcot also lost that special soul for me. It's no longer that wacky never-ending world exhibition, but just another theme park. And while I think that Mission SPACE is a great ride, I'd pay double the admission just to get another ride on Horizons.

Dollywood is like that great independent cinema, that despite all the odds keeps the place buzzing. They may not have the biggest screen, laser-shark-tank-aligned sound system or auto-aligning massaging recliners with built-in heating, but everything they do is done with honesty and love for what they're doing. The vibe is right and that alone makes for a great experience.

The only Disney property that still has this truly special feel to me is Tokyo, which is, ironically, not ran by The Walt Disney Company itself. Their second gate is especially stunning and is a perfect example that you still can give a multi-billion dollar development something like a heart and soul. This is what's utterly lacking in most newer Disney developments for me. I mean, newer additions like the Star Wars land are technical marvels, but they sorely lack soul and just feel like a highly themed shopping mall with a bunch of, admittedly great rides thrown in.

[Mike Blakesley]

Still, in the spirit of Walt Disney, his parks shouldn't only be attainable for the elite and for lots of people, it feels like Disney is doing everything possible to make it that way. What people are complaining about is that they hiked much of the prices and degraded the overal service level. Free Fast Pass is gone, replaced by a "pay to play" system. Entertainment options have been canceled, perks reduced, etc., but prices have been jacked up considerably.

You're not wrong on any of that... the odd thing is, no matter how much they raise the prices, more people show up! So you can imagine what would happen if they actually lowered the prices. They really can't handle any MORE people than they already get. When it comes to ticket prices, theme parks are in the same situation as movie theaters, really -- the equipment and tech necessary to provide the show (along with all the other expenses like wages, insurance, taxes, utilities, etc) keeps going up and people keep demanding more, more, more, bigger, better, higher tech, etc., plus they all have the competition down the road to contend with...so they need to make a lot of $$$ to finance all of this.

As for the parks only being available for the elite.... they were always pretty expensive. The stupid media loves to compare the original "$3.50" admission with today's $150 one, but it's not a fair comparison because the old ticket didn't include any rides, where the new ticket includes everything except food and souvenirs. I still remember the first time I was there, in 1977, my parents were commenting then about the high cost of all those ride tickets. According to Google, the entry ticket in '77 was $6.00. Once in the gate, you would buy the ticket book, which gave you a few E tickets, but not enough (and you always had wasted A and B tickets left over). I remember buying at least a half-dozen or more extra E tickets. By the time we were done, we probably each spent at least $20 or more on ride tickets. Add that to the $6.00 ticket price, for a total of $26.00. $26 in 1977 is worth about $137 today... but there are more rides there today, and today's new rides are FAR more elaborate than they were back then when Space Mountain was the height of technology. So I would say their prices aren't out of line at all.

I do wish Disney would go back to creating "original" attractions, rather than ones based off of IP. I get why they do it, but it's more fun to see something completely new. My favorite ride at Magic Kingdom after all these years is still the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. (It used to be tied with Splash Mountain for me, but I haven't seen Splash since it was rethemed so I'm reserving judgement on it.)

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Here is an interesting article I ran across as to the movie ticket prices by State... Amazingly, Wyoming is cheapest. I thought my Wyoming customers charged that much long ago...

https://www.cabletv.com/entertainmen...a-movie-ticket

[Ryan Gallagher]

Here is an interesting article I ran across as to the movie ticket prices by State... Amazingly, Wyoming is cheapest. I thought my Wyoming customers charged that much long ago...

https://www.cabletv.com/entertainmen...a-movie-ticket

It is worth noting it appears they only included pricing from 3 publicly traded national chains for a first run movie, imax was not included, nor Alamo, nor any independent or smaller operations.

The state to state pricing is interesting though, even from the same chain.

To add a data point, our classic films cost 12$/adult currently at a non-profit, if it is a double feature the 2nd film is no cost. For comparison an AMC new release back row is 16$ here.

TBH part of that article reads like an ad for streaming services too, lol.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

In Wyomingband Montana, there are way more indies that have great theaters than there are big chains...

[Ryan Gallagher]

What would be interesting is to see their pricing data correlated against state average CPI-U (urban cost of living).

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Yea, it doesn't have much data except prices for first run chains...