Film: Not Dead Yet

Until very recently it was possible to purchase a camera that was film based: the Canon DSLR - EOS Iv. The company ceased production of the EOS-Iv in 2010 but has been slowly selling of its stock with the last one being sold a few weeks ago.

However, photography printing is still very much alive. At the time it was killing off film cameras, Canon announced its new IVY Mini Photo Printer.  The IVY is targeted to a young audience.  Today, 85% of all photos are taken with smartphones, and IVY is a clear play to put Canon products in the hands of mobile consumers.

The smartphone accessory that lets Instagrammers print photos for lasting memories is poised to be a winner. Gifting a printed photo has a lot more meaning than a Facebook posting. What makes these printers acceptable are their size - they are small and that's all due to a technology called ZINK.

Zink is a 'zero ink' printing technology, originally developed by Polaroid and spun-off as a separate company in 2005.  Like Polaroid photos everything needed to produce a great image is embedded on the ZINK paper itself.  The devices that use ZINK don't require ink which allows the devices to maintain their compactness, and photos don't need to dry before handling.

With an initial retail of 50 cents per print regardless of quantity the attraction of affordable instant printing is huge.

Canon isn't the only company pushing the ZINK technology, Polaroid, Kodak, HP, and LG are among the global manufactures that also have an array of ZINK powered instant cameras and mobile printers.

In addition to consumers there is great potential for corporate use. The primary business printer market is dying as tablets take over. But, screens can't always replace all images and ones that produce hard-copies instantaneously.

ZINK is going to be big and its use has only, thus far, been confined to consumer selfies - there is much more it can, and will, do.

Best,
Jim Lavorato

.

Oscar, You Need A Face-lift

Last week, the Oscars announced that there were going to be changes to the awards show.  While many, including yours truly, applaud the long-awaited changes - such as shorting the length of the show - it still remains a staid and boring annual tribute to the greatest entertainment on earth.

The changes being contemplated by the Academy, include:

- New award for: 'Outstanding Achievement in a Popular Film'. Translation: What Film Had The Biggest Gross'.
- A bunch of what are termed "behind the scenes" awards will not be broadcasted  but will be given
out during the commercial breaks.
- The whole show will be limited to three hours of run-time.

Note: the same film could win both Best Picture and Most Popular.                                                                               
Well, we've all known for a long time that the Show needed changing. But are these changes enough? The Oscars need to be movie-fan-centric NOT Hollywood-centric. I have always believed that the Awards should be given based on box-office and fan-based criteria and not on 'so called' film as art.

Which Awards will be 'cut' is still an open question and a very bitter battle is expected within the
Academy ranks. Technical awards were never popular with the public, so I say cut them all  OUT. Who cares about Sound Editing or Original Script? In there place lets have some REAL Awards: Best Sequel, Best Film Without A Storyline, Best Reboot now we're talking. Lets make the Oscars a real show, a fan-centric show. We need to reduce Oscar fatigue and bring in showmanship.

And as you know, as the Oscars go so do all of the other Award-fests. SAG, Golden Globes, etc.,etc.,etc. - but it's all the same stuff with all the same people over and over.

Oscar needs a face-lift, NO a total re-construct.

Just saying,
Jim Lavorato

Selling The Cinema: What Motivates Moviegoers

Stressed: Visit Your Cinema

Yesterday I went to my local cinema (Harkins Shea 14 in Scottsdale, AZ) to see 'Mission Impossible: Fallout".  The film was excellent and not only satisfied my entertainment requirements as a high-impact, action movie but, even more, gave me something else - RELIEF. 

That's right, as I was watching the trailers of upcoming films, it occurred to me that I was sitting in this cinema and I was relaxed. No distractions, no calls, no emails, no texts. I was into the experience and I was relaxed, relieved and I have to admit -  a bit excited.

This, elated feeling, I can never get at home. If I'm viewing a movie or streaming a video at home, I'm still tethered to the damn phone, I'm still a slave to the PC or iPad, I'm not in my full comfort-zone. At the cinema, it's all about ME not Them. And that, my friends, is Marketable.

I believe, that more and more, what motivates folks to visit the cinema is relief. The moviegoing experience has become a 'stress-depressor'. A way to de-compress for a few hours and leave the outside world (and all if its pressures) at the cinema doorway - and the cinema industry should be marketing this! Because it's a Good Thing and it is a Reality.

Think about the last time you visited a cinema. How did you feel? Note: if you don't frequent the cinema than you shouldn't be reading this blog. What were your feelings as you sat down, with your corn and soda, in anticipation of experiencing a film you selected from a marquee full of choices?

What you FELT was RELIEF and it's all good!

Best,
Jim Lavorato

MoviePass Near-Death

From the get/go CMG made it perfectly clear that MoviePass was a fractured concept. Having moviegoers pay $10 per month for the privilege of going to a cinema as many times as they desired during that month was a non-starter from a monetary sense - although, I must say, MoviePass (which claims to have 3m members) lasted longer than I thought.

Problem was that MoviePass execs had convinced themselves that exhibitors would eventually come around as MoviePass subscribers increased and that all would share as the admission and concession pie grew. Wow, the more you think about it the worse it is. Needless to say, charging $10 per month and than having to pay full admission for the tickets the subscribers required made no sense. MoviePass tried various pricing structures during it tenure but the concept, as we stated, is flawed.

Now, AtomTickets (a ticketing service whose main competition is Fandango) is smelling blood and last week launched a contest encouraging customers of the flailing MoviePass to cancel their memberships for a chance to win one year of free tickets.

Calling it "Break UP Sweepstakes" the winner will receive a free daily movie ticket for 365 days (valued at $4,380). To enter, MoviePass customers must tweet a picture of their cut-up MoviePass member card to AtomTickets.

The straw that broke MoviePass's back occurred on Monday when their system crashed and their parent company was forced to borrow $5 million to resolve the issue, and then warned subscribers that "certain movies may not always be available in every theater on our platform".

AtomTickets is owned by Lionsgate, Disney, Fox, and Fidelity. Its board includes: Spielberg, JJ Abrams, Tyler Perry, Dwayne Johnson, and Dany Garcia (Johnson and Garcia are also investors).

CMG also predicted that Fandango would fall on rocky times and with AtomTickets as a competitor that's not good news for Fandango (owned by NBC/Universal).

Stay in touch,
Jim Lavorato