Slashdot Mirror


Low Cost Cinema Through Dynamic Pricing

cinesprocket writes "EasyJet, the European pioneer of LowCost airline travel has broadened its horizon into the entertainment field. easyCinema is to open tomorrow in Milton Keynes, England, offering cinema-goers cheap rate tickets as low as 20 pence (33 cents) using the same formula that made their airline company revolutionise the industry in Europe. However, according to the the BBC, easyCinema is being given the bird by Hollywood who will not allow it to show it's high cost movies for a low price for fear that it will create a domino effect in the future, like the airline industry has felt (in Europe). Given that easyCinema is willing to pay the movie producers the same price as the other multiplexes, it shouldn't matter what price they sell on the tickets at for we poor folk? Their success depends upon showing the big films and their lawyers are reported to be already mounting a case. Given that the case will be heard in England, where the MPAA have less of a hold on the government, it will be interesting whether they can bring the behemoth to its knees."

32 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Based on Slashdot profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tickets to the Matrix 2 would've cost $5,402,302.49 each.

  2. Wha lawyers? by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Courts? Why are there courts involved? Is easyCinema trying to force the MPAA to sign a contract? Is the MPAA trying to get easyCinema shut down even though they aren't doing business with each other?

    1. Re:Wha lawyers? by Throatwarbler+Mangro · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, easyCinema, in their way, is trying to force the MPAA into signing a contract.

      If, like most /. readers, you follow[ed] the myriad Microsoft court cases (or browse practically half of the YRO section) you'll remember that there are some things that ordinary companies can do that monopolies can't.

      Normally a company can decide who it wants to do business with. That's just common sense, not to mention an important facet of the free market. A monopoly, on the other hand, by virtue of being the [near] sole provider of a resource cannot be allowed that luxury. To make a borderline facile analogy: Suppose a pharmaceutical company developed a cure for cancer, and cornered the market on same. Also assume that have, for our hypothetical purposes, a near-infinite supply of same. Would we allow that company to refuse the cure to certain people, even if they were willing to pay the specified price? Obviously, this isn't an exact analog to the situation (this situation would probably be brought under charges of discrimination, rather than monopolism), but it servers the purpose.

      Is the MPAA a monopoly? While I'm sure a large percentage of Slashdotters have a very strong opinion on that subject, ulitmately it remains for the courts to decide.

    2. Re:Wha lawyers? by citog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The courts are involved because the film distributors are creating a monopoly that keeps ticket prices artifically high. You could probably accuse the cinemas of operating a cartel also. easyCinema are prepared to pay the going rate to screen the movie but are going to allow the ticket price to be determined by market forces. However they are prevented from doing so because a monopoly is profiting from the exclusion of market forces. Therefore this is a case for the courts (in the UK and other EU countries) because consumers are impacted.

    3. Re:Wha lawyers? by blowdart · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, easyCinema, in their way, is trying to force the MPAA into signing a contract

      No they're not. The MPAA is American. Easycinema is in the UK. I didn't realise that we were offically another american state (although these days it does appear that way).

      As for lawyers, well Stelios likes them. As he owns EasyJet, EasyRentaCar and others, he has a nasty tendancy to sue for any domain name that starts with Easy* and Easi*. When ICANN started ruling against him in domain disputes he stopped using it, and starting using the UK courts instead. He's got great PR, but underneath it all he wants his own monopoly on domain names. He finally backed down in the case of EasyArt. You may want to read up at easyprotest2.com and consider if this is the sort of person geeks should be backing.

    4. Re:Wha lawyers? by Throatwarbler+Mangro · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oops. The American bit at the end of MPAA really should've given me a clue... Whatever the UK-specific lobbying group is called, it still represents the same faction: Hollywood studios.

      Interesting link, as well. It also brings up an interesting problem; when you hate both sides, who do you root for? Stelios may be a total wanker, but I'm gonna' pick price-fixing over domain-name squabbling as the greater evil. That's a judgment call on my part, YMMV.

    5. Re:Wha lawyers? by KewlPC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except you forget that the movie's makers get their money from ticket sales, at least they do here in the US.

      Even if easyCinema offered to make up for the difference in ticket price (which they aren't; they're just saying they'll pay the same amount for the right to show the film as the other theaters, which is very small compared to the film's actual budget), easyCinema's price for everything else (candy, drinks, etc.) would skyrocket (why do you think theaters charge so much already? When you only get 50% of the ticket price, you've got to make your money elsewhere).

      Typically here in the US, the distributor gets 50%, and the theater gets the other 50%. The distributor then takes their 50% and divides it up amongst all remaining parties according to their contract(s) with said remaining parties.

      And the MPAA isn't a monopoly. It doesn't make movies, it doesn't distribute them, and it doesn't advertise them, therefor it can't be a monopoly. The whole point of the MPAA originally was to be a non-governmental regulatory force (here in the States, it's the MPAA that gives the movies their (voluntary) rating; it was also the MPAA that decided the dispute between New Line Cinema and MGM over the name of Austin Powers: Goldmember), but its purpose has been extended a bit since then.

      What's more, the member studios compete against each other, and none of them are monopolies.

      If ordered that since they allow other theaters to exhibit their films they must also allow easyCinema to, it could be very likely that the major Hollywood studios would simply not distribute their films in theaters at all, since they don't make much money in the UK anyway (even non-fluff, non-action films make only a few million in the UK).

      Ultimately, I think that this will hurt everybody: the big Hollywood studios, the UK studios, and the independents, since 50% of a 33 cent ticket price is only 16.5 cents. At that rate, even if everyone in the United States (population is approx. 280 million) saw a film, it would only pull in 46.2 million. And since the percentage of any country's population that see a particular film is incredibly small, films would make far less.

      But how would this hurt the moviegoing public? Simple: far fewer films will get made (if any), they will be much shorter, and of far lower quality.

    6. Re:Wha lawyers? by oolon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes and no, he is trying to get the film manufacturers to sign a fixed price contract so he knows how much to charge but they only want to sign the normal one were they get a share of the takings. Historically this agreement has been good and bad, it HAS ment that poor cinemas and low volume ones could take films they otherwise could never justify. Some cinemas would have never been able to afford the upfront cost (and infact risk). In the days of multiplexs and chains it has also been used laterly to milk big hits. I got to see Matrix reloaded at my local multiplex (I have 2 walking distance from my house) and didn't think that the 3 pounds (4.5 dollars) was alot to pay for my ticket, that would have bought me one pint of Guiness in london and lasted ALOT longer (some might say two long....)

      James

    7. Re:Wha lawyers? by matthewp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      blowdart wrote: You may want to read up at easyprotest2.com and consider if this is the sort of person geeks should be backing.

      True, but we should also be able to move beyond tribal politics and recognise that we can support someone on one issue, and oppose them on another.

      There's a wide variety of views here at Slashdot (though it's sometimes tempting to assume everyone thinks the same), but many here don't have much time for abusive monopolies. It's entirely consistent to support easyCinema on this, without condoning the company's actions in other areas.

    8. Re:Wha lawyers? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Insightful
      True, but we should also be able to move beyond tribal politics and recognise that we can support someone on one issue, and oppose them on another.

      The economic model that Stelios is trying is called penetration pricing. You sell at a loss, capture the market and then you jack up the prices once there is no competition. In the US where antitrust law is weak that is legal unless you are a monopoly. In the UK it is illegal regardless.

      There is a lot of ownership overlap between distributors and cinemas, but that has been invesigated by the monopolies and mergers commission and ok'd.

      It is not very likely that a UK court is going to decide that the distributors have no rights over the type and quality of the venues where their films are shown.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  3. MPAA by Soulfarmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    should be US-only problem. If something, in this case rights to show a movie in a theather, is sold to europe, MPAA should not have ANY say in the matter. As long as both parties of the deal which gives those rights follow the deal.

    It makes me angry to even think about any meddling from MPAA part on british, or any european film avenue for that matter.

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  4. Understandable. by m_chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The money for the release locations is in concessions. Get the body in the door, then make your dime. Ticket price is not the principle motivating factor in the business model of most theaters, regardless of whether they are first-run mega-plexes or indie houses. SUre enough tickets are revenue, but that's not your profit center when you run a theater.

    1. Re:Understandable. by SchnauzerGuy · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTFA...
      "But that's not the only radical idea behind this venture. At Easycinema there is no popcorn stand, hot dog stall or pick 'n' mix concession. In fact, there is not even a box office."
      ...
      "The sign above the old pick 'n' mix concession remains, but the fittings have been stripped out and it will stay empty. We don't aspire to be professional caterers, we aspire to show films people want to see James Rothnie, Easygroup The same goes for the old refreshments counter. If customers want popcorn at Easycinema they will have to bring their own, says Mr Rothnie. "When you look at the cost of serving popcorn it's actually quite expensive - you have to buy it, cook it, employ people to sell it, get a health and safety person to check it's at the right temperature. "Then you have to employ someone to clean it up after the show. We don't aspire to be professional caterers, we aspire to show films people want to see." "
    2. Re:Understandable. by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ticket price is not the principle motivating factor in the business model of most theaters

      I disagree. I was visiting in Texas when X-men came out. Saw it in a first run, nice theater in the Dallas area. Matinee tickets were 2 bucks for an adult, Saturday evening tickets were $4. Back here in North Carolina the same tickets were $5.75 for the matinee show and over $8 for the evening show. Clearly the local theater was charging that to make extra profits, and their concession prices are so high that most people avoid them. Other local theaters (different chains) charge similar prices.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re:Understandable. by bmcphall · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you go to their site, it proclaims that there is "NO rip-off popcorn". They encourage to bring your own, just do not make a mess.

      They make their money by cutting the overhead:

      "The efficiency of easyCinema starts at the box office which we have quite simply removed. Seats are booked online or by phone (soon to be available on a premium rate line), and the earlier you book the less you pay."
      They also try to get a larger quantity of people:
      "On average across the whole cinema industry and across all showings the average occupancy of cinemas is currently only 20%. Four fifths of cinema seats are going empty and yet cinemas continue to charge high prices. What we are doing at easyCinema is lowering the price in order to get more customers. We will make money as a business and more members of the public will get to see more films more often."
      It crazy enough it just might work.
    4. Re:Understandable. by m_chan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whether or not the parent post gave complete credence to their business plan doesn't matter. Your cut and paste from the fine article does not change the fact that movie theatre profit is generated principally from concessions, and should their model prove successful, others will copy it but won't mind paying the "high cost" of popcorn serving.

      It is documented concessions are the principle motivator in the venture of showing feature releases. If there is sufficient demand for popcorn when the bodies arrive, it will be understandable when they will sell popcorn.

    5. Re:Understandable. by KewlPC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ticket prices vary from area to area. It has nothing to do with what the theater wants or what the market will support, at least not directly. It's very rare that the individual theaters get to decide what they charge. Rather, the corporate suits are the ones who decide. There is constant arguing/negotiating between the MPAA members and the NATO members (no, not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but the National Association of Theater Owners) over how much to charge for each area.

      And the matinee prices don't really matter, since relatively few people see a movie during matinee hours.

      Don't bitch about $8. In New York the prices are something like $10. Here in Phoenix, AZ they're $8.50.

      I have a hard time believing that there exists a decent theater in a decent-sized town that still only charges $4 for a non-senior/child, non-matinee ticket.

  5. Just imagine... by Code-Ex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    - Frequent viewer miles - Standby viewings - Movie ticket scalping - Last minute rushes for extremely low prices - Progressive/preferential seating and all those other "niceties" ^_^

    1. Re:Just imagine... by cheshiremackat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know what... there is a cinema in Toronto that offers *First Class* stlye services like on an airline... the tickets are 50% more, BUT you get a seat in a smaller theater, with Lay-Z-Boy type seats, free coat check (a nicety for Winter in Toronto), and a cinema Peon to fetch your popcorn and water (still have to pay though)...

      So although it costs more, and I feel like a snob going, it actually becomes more reasonable everytime I see a movie at the *regular* (coach?) seating... Before the Matrix was 30 minutes of commercials, 5 (!?!) movie previews (1 good 4 crap), and waiting for the movie to start (before the lights dimm) there were slideshow ads on the screen...

      Paying first class is certainly worthwhile, just to avoid all the advertisements!

      _CMK

      --
      Bad spellers of the world untie!
  6. Dominos are cool by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I sincerely hope that easyCinema appears, enjoys a lot of success, and causes exactly the domino effect that the MPAA fears. I want to see movie prices come down, and more importantly, I want to see this change affect the music industry as well. Finally, I hope that such a powerful domino effect causes laws like the DMCA to get taken out of the books.

  7. Why not? by Viceice · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As it stands, in some parts of the not so rich world , movie tickets are just about equel that in value.

    So what if the lowest possible ticket price is 33 cents? it's just like booking a really cheap flight.. teh cheapest one being the 3 a.m flight which you have to book 6 months adead for.

    Why not have it like in a real theather, where the better seats, say smack right in the center, are more expensive then the left most seat in the front row?

    You get to advertise cheap and you have the option of paying less for a crappy seat.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  8. Correction -- not really connected with easyJet by fm6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is yet another venture by Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the seventh of his easy* ventures. One of these is easyJet, but he's no longer involved with the management of that company.

  9. Finally, this is on-topic! by gpinzone · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Sell movie tickets for a loss.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

    Tell me again why people who think the airline industry is a good place to turn a profit have a viable business model here?

  10. the best way to make money by miyako · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...would be to not only have cheap tickets

    but to sell those super duper jumbo sodas really cheap
    ...and then charge $20 to use the bathroom

    seriously the only time you ever have to pee worse than when you wake up in the morning is right after sitting through a movie in the theatre, or is this just me?

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  11. Airline business model? by Elentar · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, if they're following the airline business model, does that mean that you can watch the movie for free, but you have to buy a ticket in order to listen to it too?

    -Elentar

    --
    The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
  12. it's not about price.... by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Informative

    The boys presenting this scheme have a good, solid idea which has been used to before by some other industries (e.g., the airlines). Fact is, actual attendance is dismally low compared to seating when you adjust for all times, around 1/5 of the theater seats available. Decreasing price results in increasing attendance; Econ 101 tells you that in many cases the improved attendance will actually result in *more* profits, not less. That is:

    Fill 20 seats at $7 each = $140
    Fill 50 seats at $4 each = $200
    Fill 100 seats at $2.50 each = $250

    And so on.

    But the MPAA isn't interested in the basics of the free market. What they're interested in is control, pure and simple - and price fixing is one very obvious, and very effective, method of maintaining control. If you can no longer enforce price fixing then you lose one of your more important tools for controlling not only the theaters that run your movies, but also of moviegoers.

    How's that? It's really very, very simple: the higher the price the less movies the consumer can afford. Because the consumer can only see x number of movies, advertising can be used to 'herd' the consumer into spending his limited movie income on movies the MPAA chooses to push. The higher the price, the more limited the options, the more likely the consumer will spend his money on something being heavily promoted by the MPAA.

    Lower the price and the consumer can now make more movie choices. The consumer, blast his heathen soul, might decide to use some of this disposable income to see movies *not* promoted by the MPAA - perhaps smaller, independent films. The consumer, that communist scumbag, might actually begin to believe that he has a more options - he might even take some of that 'movie money' and spend it on something else! After all, if all he wants to see are two films a month, and they're now half the price that they were, he might spend the other half of the money on something radical, like a book.

    Bad, bad consumer!

    In any event, remember that the MPAA is at the top of the heap. Like any organization that's king of the hill, change is a threat to the status quo and one that must be quashed regardless of the possible upside. To the invested, change is evil and must be prevented at all costs.

    This particular change takes some power out of the hands of the MPAA and puts it into the hands of the consumer. Despite the fact that it would most likely increase overall profits, the loss of power is simply unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Price-fixing *must* be maintained.

    For organizations like the RIAA, the MPAA, or monopolies like Microsoft, profit takes a big back seat to power. The free market is of no interest whatsoever to these folks; in fact, the less free, the better.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  13. Multiplex history by toxcspdrmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Milton Keynes was the first place in Britain to build a multiplex cinema.. The Point opened in 1985, but (I have heard) is having to close as it is has been unable to compete against the new Xscape cinema/indoor ski/health centre.

    Incidentally, Milton Keynes is also home to probably the world's only herd of concrete cows.

    --
    "E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
  14. Re:Here's why the MPAA is not a monopoly. by MulluskO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More like a cartel, then.

    --

    Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
  15. A miscalculation, I think by j-b0y · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think the easy* people have midjudged what people want from a cinema experience.

    easyJet works because, for the large majority of people (i.e. everybody who has been on a plane at least once before and aren't in >= Business Class), flights are an enormous pain in the ass and only serve as a means to an end (get to where they want to go). Their pricing model is reasonably transparent and you know what you're getting in terms of service (not a lot).

    Whereas the traditional carriers have hideously arcane and obscure pricing models and clearly are charing way over the odds for flights. The cats out of the bag on that one.

    Transpose this to the cinema industry and you find that it doesn't work. People *like* the cinema experience; the upturn in cinema attendance after the collapse in the late 80s (at least in the UK) was due in part to the far higher quality of cinema experience (pleasant environment, better seats etc etc). Going to the cinema is not just a means to an end, it's an end in itself.

    In any case, 'going to the cinema' is right up there in the top 5% of 'impulse activities'. No one is going to book 10 days in advance for a film. Personally speaking, I can seldom decide which film I'm going to see until 10 minutes before it starts. :)

    --
    Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
  16. Not necessarily cheap... by BlightThePower · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First a point of order and then an opinion...

    At the risk of pissing in the wind here... the answer to quite a few questions that are above this are in the article.

    Those confused by the viability of the business model: NOTE: Not *all* the tickets will cost 20p. In fact, probably relatively few. As the article says, you could actually pay 5 pounds, which is more than my local cinema charges now. Sure, the tickets will be on average cheaper but this 20p thing is clearly an advertising gimmick. And as such it seems to be working so far.

    I wonder how succesful this will be. Flying, if the experience as a whole is reduced in quality is fine; its a functional activity getting from A-to-B. (EasyJet=no "free" inflight snack or drink, no "free" papers, the crews do the cleaning etc, you are herded on, you are herder off) You don't fly for the sake of it. Going to the cinema on the otherhand is about more than the film itself. Depending on how far corners are cut (maintenance, technical specs of equipment, cleanliness etc.) it might be a bit unappealing as something you might do for the sake of it.

    Personally I welcome this if only because I can grandly goto a more expensive cinema round the corner and be able to watch in peace without rowdy teenagers annoying me. All for a few extra quid. Seems like a bargain to me. Everyone will be happy :-P

    --
    Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
  17. easy* is a mixed blessing by drix · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am a foreign student currently studying abroad in Europe, meaning that probably I represent one of easy*'s biggest demographics. I (and all my friends) almost always fly easyJet to travel, we rent easyCar to drive to France or Andorra, and we check our e-mail abroad at easyInternetCafe. easy is the real thing--it's cheap as hell, especially if you book really early. On the other hand the "customer experience" leaves a lot to be desired. For example, in an effort to cut costs even further, easyInternetCafe literally fired all their employees except for about 15 at the home office. No actual easyInternetCafe employees, work in the easyInternetCafes. Which is at once dumbfounding and frustrating. If your computer crashes or the machine eats your money when you try to buy time, well, you're fucked. No recourse. Lots of the computers are broken, people leave their trash laying around, there are always wierdos looking at really sick, graphic porn, and worse, the cafes are unsafe. Twice now I have seen people brazenly mugged, in broad daylight, in nearly packed easyInternetCafes. Similar experiences on easyJet; they farmed out the personnel contract (at least here in Spain) to some company named EuroHandling, whose ticket agents are assholes and unwilling to help you out in any way, especially if you arrive after 40 minutes before departure time. So I'm a little skeptical of easyCinema, even though I'd probably give it a whirl if it came to a town near me. But sentences like "All we ask is that you don't leave any litter behind" sounds like a sweet way of saying, "we're not paying for janitors, please don't trash our theaters." Personally, I'll gladly pay the extra 2 to avoid sitting on someone else's half-eaten nachos, but hey, that's me.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  18. And outside London by salimma · · Score: 4, Informative
    Weekday afternoon:
    concessions £3.50, members £3.50, adults £4.50


    Weekday after 6pm:
    concessions £5.00, members £4.50, adults £5.50


    Weekends, Friday after 6pm:
    members £4.50, adults £5.50


    This is for York City Screen, a Picturehouse Cinema, that shows lots of non-mainstream European and American movies, but also show blockbusters like the Matrix and Lord of the Rings.


    Not too much of a rip-off; London prices are exorbitant though, granted. Mostly to do with property pricing I expect.

    Though funnily, for ethnic food, London tends to be *cheaper* than north England.

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut