hoc opus

With ticket prices continuing to rise, consumers are once again reminded that the movies are not free television. And yet, seeking to remain out of bankruptcy, exhibitors have been gravitating to preshow advertising as the newest revenue stream untouchable by the distributors (studios). As with concession sales (see the $10 tub of popcorn and $5 hot dogs), theaters keep advertising dollars so that they can pay for all of the new stadium seating multiplexes that have been built over the last several years.

But all is not well with Joe Moviegoer according to a survey, released in November 2004, by InsightExpress:

"Of the moviegoers surveyed, 53% said that they wanted exhibs to stop showing commercials, while 27% said they go to the movies less because of the blurb barrage that now opens films on many screens. By comparison, just 13% said they liked the onscreen ads." (see Variety)

Theater owners do have concern over declining admissions in general -- box office revenue has only climbed in the last few years because of increasing ticket prices -- so anything that might exacerbate the problem generates press. In their favor, a 2003 Arbitron study found that 66% of audiences said they agreed with the statement, "I don't mind the advertisements they put on before the movie begins," and that that younger people and those who go to the movies most frequently were the least likely to object to the messages.
However, the value of this market, $400 million by the reckoning of the Cinema Advertising Council, might shrink if legislators have their way. Interviewed on the Early Show on CBS (see article), Connecticut state representative Andrew Fleishman has submitted a bill that would require theaters to post the actual time a movie starts, not just when previews and ads begin, in advertisements.

For now, when deciding whether to try and avoid the commericals, consumers must consider which is more important: location or irritation avoidance.

--------