As predicted, many moons ago, the days of the DVD rental/sale are numbered. The last major video store chain, Blockbuster Video, went bust and was up for auction last Monday.
Ravaged by savvy newcomers - Netflix and RedBox, which offered consumers cheaper and easier access to DVDs, Blockbuster was devoured. In turn, as I write this , Netflix is trying to advance its mail delivery strategy by inking deals, as fast as it can, with the movie studios for internet streaming rights. Netflix management knows this will not be an easy task, as it will have to battle with the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple (to name several) in this space. RedBox will also have to provide a web-based distribution strategy if it is to survive.
The digital domain is littered with the carcasses of many former robust and profitable entities which, like Blockbuster, have come to their end. Digital technology ceaselessly progresses and the Hollywood studios should take a hard look at their current strategy of having movie theatres convert to digital projection. For if the studios lose their control of movie distribution we will begin to witness the end of Hollywood as we know it.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Saturday, April 02, 2011
BOMBS AWAY !
It seems many are feeling the financial and emotional pain inflicted by this year's dismal boxoffice gate (which actually started to freefall last holiday season). My previous post - Are We Witnessing The Collapse Of The Cinema - opened a floodgate as I was bombarded with all manner of venting from the digital domain.
It's quite apparent that many in and out of the cinema industry feel that film distributors and exhibitors are not responding to the obvious lack of interest in moviegoing by the general public. A phenomenon, I believe, due to content which is not compelling enough to motivate an expenditure north of $30 (and in some cases much more) for two admissions and concession at the local cinema.
IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE
Many of the comments I received were thoughtful and one of the most telling can from Debbie Adams , owner of the Joylan Theatre in Springville, NY. Her comment centered around not getting access to enough product and would like to see the playing field leveled. For example, she does not know why Drive-in theatres have access to many more films , with shorter play dates, and double book all the time. Why can't the Joylan double book and have shorter runs as they play second run most of the time.
Good point.
This is but one of the situations faced by small exhibitors and there are many others. What puzzles me is if you have an distribution point for your product and customers willing to buy it why not give the retailer (exhib.) the product to sell, especially since the product (a movie) has a very finite life.
FILM BOOKING NEEDS A REVAMP
What once worked in the FILM BOOKING business doesn't anymore. The current and archaic movie booking business needs to be restructured. The whole process should be on-line, straight forward, and exhibitor friendly. I'm sure a process can be devised whereby exhibs. are given access to upcoming films and playdates in a menu driven, secured format controlled by the studios.
I know this will sound like heresy to many in the industry but a complete redo of the movie booking business is way overdue. The current process is seriously out-dated and does not provide an efficient, flexible , or best use of technology. A revamped and streamlined booking process would provide enhanced profits for both the distribs. and exhibs. Think about it.
Best and Happy Movie Going!
Jim Lavorato
It's quite apparent that many in and out of the cinema industry feel that film distributors and exhibitors are not responding to the obvious lack of interest in moviegoing by the general public. A phenomenon, I believe, due to content which is not compelling enough to motivate an expenditure north of $30 (and in some cases much more) for two admissions and concession at the local cinema.
IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE
Many of the comments I received were thoughtful and one of the most telling can from Debbie Adams , owner of the Joylan Theatre in Springville, NY. Her comment centered around not getting access to enough product and would like to see the playing field leveled. For example, she does not know why Drive-in theatres have access to many more films , with shorter play dates, and double book all the time. Why can't the Joylan double book and have shorter runs as they play second run most of the time.
Good point.
This is but one of the situations faced by small exhibitors and there are many others. What puzzles me is if you have an distribution point for your product and customers willing to buy it why not give the retailer (exhib.) the product to sell, especially since the product (a movie) has a very finite life.
FILM BOOKING NEEDS A REVAMP
What once worked in the FILM BOOKING business doesn't anymore. The current and archaic movie booking business needs to be restructured. The whole process should be on-line, straight forward, and exhibitor friendly. I'm sure a process can be devised whereby exhibs. are given access to upcoming films and playdates in a menu driven, secured format controlled by the studios.
I know this will sound like heresy to many in the industry but a complete redo of the movie booking business is way overdue. The current process is seriously out-dated and does not provide an efficient, flexible , or best use of technology. A revamped and streamlined booking process would provide enhanced profits for both the distribs. and exhibs. Think about it.
Best and Happy Movie Going!
Jim Lavorato
Thursday, March 24, 2011
ARE WE WITNESSING THE COLLAPSE OF THE CINEMA
SINCE EARLY 2010 I'VE BEEN HARPING on the issue of boxoffice fatigue by the public. Could we now be witnessing the tipping point in boxoffice attendance. Has the price for a movie ticket and concession products reached a point where it is no longer viewed as "valued" entertainment but merely high priced same old ?
YTD the boxoffice is 20% below last year, equating to a downside figure of approximately $500 million. The question is whether this boxoffice disaster is merely a bump in the road which can be chalked up to a slate of lousy releases or are we witnessing the beginning of a structural shift taking place in the movie exhibition business?
Being so far behind 2010's results this early in the year - and last year's performance was nothing to cheer about as ticket sales were down 6% from 2009's level - it will take a string of summer blockbusters and an over-the-top holiday season for ticket sales to reset on an upward trajectory. And, unlike last year, when premium 3D admission pricing pushed the boxoffice gross slightly over 2009 results the recent roster of 3D offerings have not garnered the public's enthusiasm nor wallet opening.
At the current pace 2011 will end the year at 1.04 billion admissions, which is tandamount to a drop of over 280 million as compared to 2010 and which will be at a level not seen in over 15 years.
It's time for a revamp of the cinema exhibition business. This should be clearly evident to anyone and certainly for those, like myself, that make their living from this industry. For over a year I have been pushing the notion that all movies are not created equal and thus should not have equal pricing. There is no logical reason for boxoffice pricing to be a "one price fits all" scenario. The studios (and the exhibitors falling in lock step) should be tiering their pricing for films AT THE BOXOFFICE! And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop comparing the cost of going to the movies with that of attending a football game or broadway play (as the folks at the National Association of Theatre Owners are always postulating) this argument is specious. As is the inflation adjusted speil. If computers were priced on an inflation adjusted basis the now gigantic desk top I purchased in 1995 ( which was way less powerful then a smart phone of today) would cost over $45,000. Some products can not be inflation adjusted and movies are one of them. The trick (and it's really not a trick at all but run-of-the-mill marketing strategy) is to increase the volume of sales, ie more butts in seats at the cinema.
The current utilization rate at cinemas is about 13-15% or on average 85% of the seats are empty while a movie is being played. A concervative count puts the number of seats at cinemas in the U.S. at 9.6 million (275 seats times 35,000 screens). This means that on any given day movies are exhibited to over 8 million empty seats! It's no wonder that movie exhibition is such a marginal business. No industry could sustain this level of performance on a continuous basis. The volume of business MUST increase and the best, easiest, and most efficient way to accomplish this is by lowering the price of admission and the consequent lowering of concession pricing because the volume of business would be increasing, you know - sell more popcorn but at a lower price and make more profit.
Given the current economic situation, people (I truly believe) feel that attending a movie is too expensive and only of value with films that provide them a real out of home experience. Reducing the boxoffice admission price of the average film would increase attendance. And then it would be up to the exhibitors to lower concession pricing given the higher attendance volume. I may be naive, but this is one of the ways , and a must do, for the cinema to survive going forward.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
YTD the boxoffice is 20% below last year, equating to a downside figure of approximately $500 million. The question is whether this boxoffice disaster is merely a bump in the road which can be chalked up to a slate of lousy releases or are we witnessing the beginning of a structural shift taking place in the movie exhibition business?
Being so far behind 2010's results this early in the year - and last year's performance was nothing to cheer about as ticket sales were down 6% from 2009's level - it will take a string of summer blockbusters and an over-the-top holiday season for ticket sales to reset on an upward trajectory. And, unlike last year, when premium 3D admission pricing pushed the boxoffice gross slightly over 2009 results the recent roster of 3D offerings have not garnered the public's enthusiasm nor wallet opening.
At the current pace 2011 will end the year at 1.04 billion admissions, which is tandamount to a drop of over 280 million as compared to 2010 and which will be at a level not seen in over 15 years.
It's time for a revamp of the cinema exhibition business. This should be clearly evident to anyone and certainly for those, like myself, that make their living from this industry. For over a year I have been pushing the notion that all movies are not created equal and thus should not have equal pricing. There is no logical reason for boxoffice pricing to be a "one price fits all" scenario. The studios (and the exhibitors falling in lock step) should be tiering their pricing for films AT THE BOXOFFICE! And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop comparing the cost of going to the movies with that of attending a football game or broadway play (as the folks at the National Association of Theatre Owners are always postulating) this argument is specious. As is the inflation adjusted speil. If computers were priced on an inflation adjusted basis the now gigantic desk top I purchased in 1995 ( which was way less powerful then a smart phone of today) would cost over $45,000. Some products can not be inflation adjusted and movies are one of them. The trick (and it's really not a trick at all but run-of-the-mill marketing strategy) is to increase the volume of sales, ie more butts in seats at the cinema.
The current utilization rate at cinemas is about 13-15% or on average 85% of the seats are empty while a movie is being played. A concervative count puts the number of seats at cinemas in the U.S. at 9.6 million (275 seats times 35,000 screens). This means that on any given day movies are exhibited to over 8 million empty seats! It's no wonder that movie exhibition is such a marginal business. No industry could sustain this level of performance on a continuous basis. The volume of business MUST increase and the best, easiest, and most efficient way to accomplish this is by lowering the price of admission and the consequent lowering of concession pricing because the volume of business would be increasing, you know - sell more popcorn but at a lower price and make more profit.
Given the current economic situation, people (I truly believe) feel that attending a movie is too expensive and only of value with films that provide them a real out of home experience. Reducing the boxoffice admission price of the average film would increase attendance. And then it would be up to the exhibitors to lower concession pricing given the higher attendance volume. I may be naive, but this is one of the ways , and a must do, for the cinema to survive going forward.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Friday, March 18, 2011
Diary of a Drive-In Theatre: Installment #1
IT'S NOT OFTEN THESE days that we get to consult on, design, and perform the build-out of a new Drive-In Theatre; however, we received a call about a month ago to do just that. One of our cinema customers, who owns several multiplex movie theatres, asked us to meet and discuss with him and a landowner the feasibility of moving forward with their idea of building a new Drive-in Theatre Since this project is still in the development stage I will wait and not divulge its name and location, at this time, other then to say that the site is located in a semi-rural area of a mid-Atlantic state with no other Drive-ins even remotely close to it.
The parcel of land upon which the Drive-in will reside is large but has a high water table and is in a floodplain which makes it unsuitable for most commercial and certainly any residental development, but will work fine for a Drive-in with the right construction.
SITE DEVELOPMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS:
As of today, all but one of the required construction permits have been obtained and as we thought through the unique issues with the property and the current state of the cinema industry, we recommend that only two large screens be constructed capable of accommodating, at least, 600 cars each. This was done because we wanted to have large screens. I know this bucks the current trend of Drive-ins having multiple but smaller screens; however, I feel patrons want to view movies on large screens and a Drive-in is no exception. Additionally, we recommended that only one screen and projection booth be constructed for this summer's opening and the other in the summer of 2012. This strategy allowed for assessing the profitability of the Drive-in and would flush out any shortcomings or potential trouble spots encountered.
To side-step the water issue we recommended that the projection booth be constructed on stilts, much like the homes located on the southeastern coast of the U.S. In this case, the stilts would be telephone poles (which are easily obtained and water sealed). Only single phase power would be used, saving money on electrical power installation and, best of all, the concession areas and restrooms would be located in large movable trailers specifically outfitted for these purposes, and which could be moved and stored off-site, eliminating the winter/spring flooding issues.
As the project moves forward I will be updating you with both narrative and photos, so keep on the look out for the next installment.
Best & Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
The parcel of land upon which the Drive-in will reside is large but has a high water table and is in a floodplain which makes it unsuitable for most commercial and certainly any residental development, but will work fine for a Drive-in with the right construction.
SITE DEVELOPMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS:
As of today, all but one of the required construction permits have been obtained and as we thought through the unique issues with the property and the current state of the cinema industry, we recommend that only two large screens be constructed capable of accommodating, at least, 600 cars each. This was done because we wanted to have large screens. I know this bucks the current trend of Drive-ins having multiple but smaller screens; however, I feel patrons want to view movies on large screens and a Drive-in is no exception. Additionally, we recommended that only one screen and projection booth be constructed for this summer's opening and the other in the summer of 2012. This strategy allowed for assessing the profitability of the Drive-in and would flush out any shortcomings or potential trouble spots encountered.
To side-step the water issue we recommended that the projection booth be constructed on stilts, much like the homes located on the southeastern coast of the U.S. In this case, the stilts would be telephone poles (which are easily obtained and water sealed). Only single phase power would be used, saving money on electrical power installation and, best of all, the concession areas and restrooms would be located in large movable trailers specifically outfitted for these purposes, and which could be moved and stored off-site, eliminating the winter/spring flooding issues.
As the project moves forward I will be updating you with both narrative and photos, so keep on the look out for the next installment.
Best & Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Friday, March 11, 2011
Moola Report - March 2011
This is the premier issue of the CMG Moola Report - a monthly commentary on financial trends, technology, and events impacting the cinema industry.
A quick peruse of the Cinema Stock Index (insert) indicates that the cinema industry isn't doing so well in terms of market performance on a YTD basis. The only stellar performer being Technicolor (TCH) whose stock price has risen over 42% since January 1st. The biggest under-performer being Dolby Labs (DLB) whose share price has dropped 23% YTD. The overall performance of the CMG Cinema Index runs contary to the overall stock market which has risen slightly over 9% YTD.
Overall, we do not see any of the stocks in the CMB Stock Index as pull away performers but will for the most part be flat-line trenders. Several, such as Netflix (which has been a comet over the last 18 months) will trend down, given its meteoric rise and the current large volume of short selling on this stock.
Cinema Stock of the Month: Entertainment Properties Trust
EPR is a real estate investment trust that develops, owns, leases, and finances properties geared toward consumer entertainment venues in N. America.
As of 2/28/11, EPR's year-end, assets totalled $2.9billion of which $1.5billion was invested in 105 megaplex cinema sites - housing approx. 1,950 movie screens. In addition, to cinemas, EPR holds investments in retail centers, vineyards and wineries, ski parks, and public charter schools.
EPR's cinema tenents include: AMC Theatres, Regal Entertainment Group, Carmike Cinemas, Rave Motion Pictures, CineMagic/IMAX Theatres, Southern Theatres, Muvico, and Kerasotes Theatres.
Over the last three years EPR's revenue stream dipped from a high of $270m in '08 to $231m last year. While net income went from $102m to $58m over the same period, this performance mirrors the downturn in the commercial real estate market, which has yet to recover from the recession.
Over the last 3 years management has done of good job of de-leveraging the balance sheet and with its lock-in rate leases with the movie circuits will maintain a good stream of income and coinciding dividend payout. Dividend payouts for 2011 are anticipated to be $2.80/share , equivalent to a 5.9% yield at its current share price.
Going Forward: EPR offers a good, stable return. It currently has the opportunity to purchase properties at bargain prices, and its downside - default by leasees - is not a present threat. EPR's portfolio is skewed toward the cinema exhibition industry but has little risk regarding the ups/downs of the boxoffice and its leases all have built-in inflation escalators. My guess is EPR will, going forward, place more emphasis on non-cinema properties and holdings, particularly the charter school arena, and less on cinemas.
If you are looking for a good, steady yield EPR offers a comparable return to most other REITs and may be positioned to take better advantage of the commercial real estate market opportunites than most.
A quick peruse of the Cinema Stock Index (insert) indicates that the cinema industry isn't doing so well in terms of market performance on a YTD basis. The only stellar performer being Technicolor (TCH) whose stock price has risen over 42% since January 1st. The biggest under-performer being Dolby Labs (DLB) whose share price has dropped 23% YTD. The overall performance of the CMG Cinema Index runs contary to the overall stock market which has risen slightly over 9% YTD.
CMG STOCK INDEX
Price
3/7/11 1/1/11 % Chg. P/E Yield
Ballantyne/Strong 7.11 7.77 (8.5) NA NA
Carmike Cinemas 6.77 7.72 (12.3) 19 -
Cinedigm Digital 1.49 1.68 (11.3) - -
Disney 43.49 37.51 15.9 19 .45/1%
Dolby 51.08 66.70 (23.4) 20 -
Entertainment Properties 47.31 46.25 2.3 24 .70/5.5%
Imax 27.77 28.07 (1.1) 19 -
Netflix 198.18 175.70 12.8 67 -
National Cinemedia 18.40 19.91 (7.6) 31 .80/4.2%
Rentrak 26.28 30.16 (12.9) - -
Regal Entertainment 13.80 11.74 17.6 27 .84/6.1%
Time Warner 36.58 32.17 13.7 16 .92/2.6%
Technicolor 5.09 3.56 42.9 3 -
This month's highlighted cinema stock is Entertainment Properties Trust (EPR) one of the stocks represented in the CMG Cinema Index. EPR, a real estate investment trust (REIT), is up only 2.3% YTD but could be a big beneficiary of a rising commercial real estate market - when that market normalizes - and by an increase in the inflation rate as EPR has built-in escalators in its lease agreements. Additionally, it currently pays out a very respectable yield of 5.5% .Overall, we do not see any of the stocks in the CMB Stock Index as pull away performers but will for the most part be flat-line trenders. Several, such as Netflix (which has been a comet over the last 18 months) will trend down, given its meteoric rise and the current large volume of short selling on this stock.
Cinema Stock of the Month: Entertainment Properties Trust
EPR is a real estate investment trust that develops, owns, leases, and finances properties geared toward consumer entertainment venues in N. America.
As of 2/28/11, EPR's year-end, assets totalled $2.9billion of which $1.5billion was invested in 105 megaplex cinema sites - housing approx. 1,950 movie screens. In addition, to cinemas, EPR holds investments in retail centers, vineyards and wineries, ski parks, and public charter schools.
EPR's cinema tenents include: AMC Theatres, Regal Entertainment Group, Carmike Cinemas, Rave Motion Pictures, CineMagic/IMAX Theatres, Southern Theatres, Muvico, and Kerasotes Theatres.
Over the last three years EPR's revenue stream dipped from a high of $270m in '08 to $231m last year. While net income went from $102m to $58m over the same period, this performance mirrors the downturn in the commercial real estate market, which has yet to recover from the recession.
Over the last 3 years management has done of good job of de-leveraging the balance sheet and with its lock-in rate leases with the movie circuits will maintain a good stream of income and coinciding dividend payout. Dividend payouts for 2011 are anticipated to be $2.80/share , equivalent to a 5.9% yield at its current share price.
Going Forward: EPR offers a good, stable return. It currently has the opportunity to purchase properties at bargain prices, and its downside - default by leasees - is not a present threat. EPR's portfolio is skewed toward the cinema exhibition industry but has little risk regarding the ups/downs of the boxoffice and its leases all have built-in inflation escalators. My guess is EPR will, going forward, place more emphasis on non-cinema properties and holdings, particularly the charter school arena, and less on cinemas.
If you are looking for a good, steady yield EPR offers a comparable return to most other REITs and may be positioned to take better advantage of the commercial real estate market opportunites than most.
THE CMG TrendSETTER List
Rising Falling Splat
Yoga Kickboxing Palates
Streaming DVD rentals DVD sales
Kinect Wii Fit Guitar Hero
Lululemon Under Armor Sweats
Best & Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
IMPROVING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE
In the March 4th issue of Entertainment Weekly the mag took aim at Hollywood and listed 10 - can do now initiatives - that would help get the movies back on course and stop the hemorrhaging of boxoffice attendance (a topic that has been covered many times in this blog).
The 10 initiatives ranged from : Stop making bad 3D flix to recruiting the best writers from TV-land to write film scripts. It's a good read and although I don't endorse all 10 , the article does point out that the cinema is in trouble and needs shaking up.
I would like to add another major initiative that Hollywood and the industry as a whole should embrace (which also happens to be my personal best way to get cinema attendance to soar) and that is to offer variable pricing at the boxoffice and stop charging the same price for all movie tickets. It makes no sense to price all movies the same. Variable pricing would enhance attendance by getting more people into theatres - who are currently not motivated by high ticket pricing for films they are not completely enthusiastic about seeing. Distribs. and exhibs. would evidence enhanced sales: boxoffice and concession, due to higher attendance. It would be a grand gesture by the industry that - I predict - would be warmly embraced by the public. Think about it.
Best and Happy Movie Going
The 10 initiatives ranged from : Stop making bad 3D flix to recruiting the best writers from TV-land to write film scripts. It's a good read and although I don't endorse all 10 , the article does point out that the cinema is in trouble and needs shaking up.
I would like to add another major initiative that Hollywood and the industry as a whole should embrace (which also happens to be my personal best way to get cinema attendance to soar) and that is to offer variable pricing at the boxoffice and stop charging the same price for all movie tickets. It makes no sense to price all movies the same. Variable pricing would enhance attendance by getting more people into theatres - who are currently not motivated by high ticket pricing for films they are not completely enthusiastic about seeing. Distribs. and exhibs. would evidence enhanced sales: boxoffice and concession, due to higher attendance. It would be a grand gesture by the industry that - I predict - would be warmly embraced by the public. Think about it.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Sunday, March 06, 2011
CMG's MOOLA REPORT
The premier of the Cinema Mucho Gusto Moola Report - is tomorrow. Therefore I thought an explanation of what this monthly Report will include and why would be helpful.
In addition to thought provoking (I hope) commentary and (always dangerous) industry prognostications The Moola Report will have the following recurring items:
- The CMG 13 Cinema Stock Index/Industry Forecaster
- The TrendSetter Report
- Commentary Highlighting Current Events & Trends
Impacting the Future of the Cinema Industry.
The CMG Stock Index
The CMG Index will highlight 13 publicly traded stocks. These companies were selected as being representative of the cinema industry's on-going and (more importantly) future performance.
The 13 stocks are:
- Ballantyne Strong (BTN)
- Carmike Cinemas (CKEC)
- Cinedigm Digital (CIDM)
- Disney (DIS)
- Dolby Labs (DLB)
- Entertainment Properties Trust (EPR)
- IMAX Corp (IMAX)
- Netflix (NFLX)
- National Cinemedia (NCMI)
- Rentrak (RENT)
- Regal Entertainment (RGC)
- Time Warner (TWX)
- Technicolor (TCH)
The Trendsetter
The Trendsetter will feature rising, falling, and out of trend products, ideas, and things which will provide you an opportunity to get on or get off trends which can make you or save you Moola.
The launching of the CMG Moola Report marks a first for providing concentrated financial and forward looking reporting and analysis on the cinema industry. It will benefit those having a personal and/or financial interest in the cinema and it's success will be judged on the accuracy of the information and prognostications it provides.
I look forward to having you read and comment on the Report each month and sincerely hope it provides you useful information and data which is thought provoking and helps in your decision making.
Best
James Lavorato, President
Entertainment Equipment Corp.
In addition to thought provoking (I hope) commentary and (always dangerous) industry prognostications The Moola Report will have the following recurring items:
- The CMG 13 Cinema Stock Index/Industry Forecaster
- The TrendSetter Report
- Commentary Highlighting Current Events & Trends
Impacting the Future of the Cinema Industry.
The CMG Stock Index
The CMG Index will highlight 13 publicly traded stocks. These companies were selected as being representative of the cinema industry's on-going and (more importantly) future performance.
The 13 stocks are:
- Ballantyne Strong (BTN)
- Carmike Cinemas (CKEC)
- Cinedigm Digital (CIDM)
- Disney (DIS)
- Dolby Labs (DLB)
- Entertainment Properties Trust (EPR)
- IMAX Corp (IMAX)
- Netflix (NFLX)
- National Cinemedia (NCMI)
- Rentrak (RENT)
- Regal Entertainment (RGC)
- Time Warner (TWX)
- Technicolor (TCH)
The Trendsetter
The Trendsetter will feature rising, falling, and out of trend products, ideas, and things which will provide you an opportunity to get on or get off trends which can make you or save you Moola.
The launching of the CMG Moola Report marks a first for providing concentrated financial and forward looking reporting and analysis on the cinema industry. It will benefit those having a personal and/or financial interest in the cinema and it's success will be judged on the accuracy of the information and prognostications it provides.
I look forward to having you read and comment on the Report each month and sincerely hope it provides you useful information and data which is thought provoking and helps in your decision making.
Best
James Lavorato, President
Entertainment Equipment Corp.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
DIGITAL CINEMA/3D BULLETIN #102 - The HPA
3DTV is of interest because it impacts cinema 3D, so it's always prudent to have a look-see at what's going in the the TV broadcast world.
Reported last week by Deborah McAdams, our friend at TVTechnology, at this year's Hollywood Post Alliance's (HPA)Tech Retreat (the broadcast industry's annual tech lovefest) there was a whole lot of discussion about a whole lot of things but there was (conspicuously) not one mention, let alone discussion, on 3DTV !
What is the HPA? Glad you asked. With its very benign moniker the HPA is composed of the elite in media. Each year the HPA holds a (by invitation only) pow-wow called the Tech Retreat, which provides a forum where all manner of issues impacting the media industries (film, TV, radio, print etc.) are discussed and information shared.
At this year's Retreat, when queried about 3DTV, Jim DeFilippis, Fox's head tech honcho, summed it up, stating, "We don't have enough bandwidth". And that is the crux of the 3DTV issue. In short, today's 3DTVs use a frame-compatible format - meaning that dual images are displayed side-by-side and viewed through active shutter glasses. If broadcasters were to transmit content in frame-compatible 3D, everyone with a non-3DTV would see dual on-screen images. So, to accommodate, the 2D and 3D video feeds are squeezed and transmitted together, but the result is a substancial loss of quality in both the 2D and 3D images.
The other way to transmit 3DTV (which is more bandwidth efficient) is to utilize what is termed, service-compatible formatting. This format supports 3D through the addition of data to the 2D signal - termed "2D Plus Delta". With 2D+Delta, every viewer gets the left eye view. The right eye view gets electronically subtracted from the left eye view to create a different signal or delta, which is encoded and transmitted.
Europe currently uses the 2D+Delta format; however, U.S. broadcasters are stimied as the National Broadcast Plan (the recently approved master plan for use of the broadcast spectrum) calls for freeing up 40% of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband - which places 3DTV transmission, for most broadcasters, on the back burner.
What a shame. So, for the foreseeable future, 3D will only be available at cinemas. I hope the U.S. cinema industry takes full advantage of this unexpected opportunity for however long it lasts.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Reported last week by Deborah McAdams, our friend at TVTechnology, at this year's Hollywood Post Alliance's (HPA)Tech Retreat (the broadcast industry's annual tech lovefest) there was a whole lot of discussion about a whole lot of things but there was (conspicuously) not one mention, let alone discussion, on 3DTV !
What is the HPA? Glad you asked. With its very benign moniker the HPA is composed of the elite in media. Each year the HPA holds a (by invitation only) pow-wow called the Tech Retreat, which provides a forum where all manner of issues impacting the media industries (film, TV, radio, print etc.) are discussed and information shared.
At this year's Retreat, when queried about 3DTV, Jim DeFilippis, Fox's head tech honcho, summed it up, stating, "We don't have enough bandwidth". And that is the crux of the 3DTV issue. In short, today's 3DTVs use a frame-compatible format - meaning that dual images are displayed side-by-side and viewed through active shutter glasses. If broadcasters were to transmit content in frame-compatible 3D, everyone with a non-3DTV would see dual on-screen images. So, to accommodate, the 2D and 3D video feeds are squeezed and transmitted together, but the result is a substancial loss of quality in both the 2D and 3D images.
The other way to transmit 3DTV (which is more bandwidth efficient) is to utilize what is termed, service-compatible formatting. This format supports 3D through the addition of data to the 2D signal - termed "2D Plus Delta". With 2D+Delta, every viewer gets the left eye view. The right eye view gets electronically subtracted from the left eye view to create a different signal or delta, which is encoded and transmitted.
Europe currently uses the 2D+Delta format; however, U.S. broadcasters are stimied as the National Broadcast Plan (the recently approved master plan for use of the broadcast spectrum) calls for freeing up 40% of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband - which places 3DTV transmission, for most broadcasters, on the back burner.
What a shame. So, for the foreseeable future, 3D will only be available at cinemas. I hope the U.S. cinema industry takes full advantage of this unexpected opportunity for however long it lasts.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Sunday, February 20, 2011
CINEMA MUCHO GUSTO MOOLA REPORT
I thought it would be informative and entertaining to publish a recurring post on financial and investment issues pertaining to the cinema industry.
So, starting in March, and monthly thereafter, the Cinema Mucho Gusto Moola Report will be posted. Highlighted on the Report will be the CMG Cinema Stock Index, timely commentary and analysis on the cinema industry, the "What's Hot/What's Not Trendsetter, and a wide variety of other moola related issues.
The Cinema Mucho Gusto Moola Report will launch on March 1st - look for it. It will be a lot like nothing else!
So, starting in March, and monthly thereafter, the Cinema Mucho Gusto Moola Report will be posted. Highlighted on the Report will be the CMG Cinema Stock Index, timely commentary and analysis on the cinema industry, the "What's Hot/What's Not Trendsetter, and a wide variety of other moola related issues.
The Cinema Mucho Gusto Moola Report will launch on March 1st - look for it. It will be a lot like nothing else!
FEAR FACTOR FOLLOW UP
As a follow-up to my last post, I received an email from a cinema buddy, Michael Karagosian, who informed me that the Cinema Buying Group (CBG) was working hard to get their screen count up as the contract with Cinedigm (the company which acts as the middle man in the virtual print fee scheme) and the studios expires in 2012.
Michael, astutely, points out that the VPF equals the cost of the film print less the cost of the digital print. So, the cost of the digital print (under the VPF scheme) is the same as the cost of a film print, as long as the VPF is paid out. Therefore the more logical scenario would be that the "trigger" to eliminate film prints will be the end of the VPF scheme and not the end of Cinedigm's contract period.
Many thanks Michael.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Michael, astutely, points out that the VPF equals the cost of the film print less the cost of the digital print. So, the cost of the digital print (under the VPF scheme) is the same as the cost of a film print, as long as the VPF is paid out. Therefore the more logical scenario would be that the "trigger" to eliminate film prints will be the end of the VPF scheme and not the end of Cinedigm's contract period.
Many thanks Michael.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Saturday, February 19, 2011
THE FEAR FACTOR
Several clients, who attended the annual Drive-In Theatre Convention (which is held every February in Florida), called me to inquire about my take on the Cinema Buying Group (CBG) informing the Convention attendees that by the end of 2012 or thereabout, movies will only be available in digital format, and as such if drive-ins do not convert to D-Cinema they will effectively be out of business.
I did not attend the Drive-In Convention but am well aware of the CBG's scare tactics. First, the studios cannot pull the plug on film distribution. I'm not a corporate attorney but I believe that allowing only some folks access to your product (in this case movies) to the benefit of others is termed "restraint of trade" and is illegal.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say the studios do go only digital in 18 months. Well, the question then becomes why go with D-Cinema format. Why not let cinemas purchase inexpensive HD video projectors (priced in the $8-10,000 range) and distribute Blu-Ray DVDs for movie exhibition? OK, that's easy to figure. The studios and CBG want exhibitors to purchase a complicated, expensive, and controllable projection system (D-Cinema) because they want to maintain reign over movie distribution while reaping the benefits of a cheaper technology. They know that releasing movies to cinemas on DVDs - and there is no reason they can't be - they would lose distribution control. It's the old, have your cake and eat it too.
Exhibitors, especially independents, need to stand up. Forget about NATO fairly representing your interests, NATO is in the pocket of the studios. Let's face it, if it were just about cost savings the DVD scenario would prevail as this would save the studios and the industry even more.
The CBG.s fear tactics , revealed at the Drive-In Convention, are a throwback in today's market and price driven business environment. Why the CBG even exists is a bit of a mystery. The answer is probably a legal one as they function solely as a buffer between the exhibs and the distribs. Why don't the studios deal directly with exhibs. on the virtual print fee fiasco? Why have a middleman?
The fear factor is in full swing, don't get caught up in the rhetoric and hyperbole. The CGBs days are numbered and they are desperate. They are reminiscent of a county fair huckster or a late night infomercial announcer - "Don't be left behind. Step right up and get your D-Cinema system. It's easy, fun, free, and guarantees your cinema's survival.
It's the ShamWow spiel of the cinema industry - don't be conned. If it sound too good to be true, well, remember Bernie Madoff.
I did not attend the Drive-In Convention but am well aware of the CBG's scare tactics. First, the studios cannot pull the plug on film distribution. I'm not a corporate attorney but I believe that allowing only some folks access to your product (in this case movies) to the benefit of others is termed "restraint of trade" and is illegal.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say the studios do go only digital in 18 months. Well, the question then becomes why go with D-Cinema format. Why not let cinemas purchase inexpensive HD video projectors (priced in the $8-10,000 range) and distribute Blu-Ray DVDs for movie exhibition? OK, that's easy to figure. The studios and CBG want exhibitors to purchase a complicated, expensive, and controllable projection system (D-Cinema) because they want to maintain reign over movie distribution while reaping the benefits of a cheaper technology. They know that releasing movies to cinemas on DVDs - and there is no reason they can't be - they would lose distribution control. It's the old, have your cake and eat it too.
Exhibitors, especially independents, need to stand up. Forget about NATO fairly representing your interests, NATO is in the pocket of the studios. Let's face it, if it were just about cost savings the DVD scenario would prevail as this would save the studios and the industry even more.
The CBG.s fear tactics , revealed at the Drive-In Convention, are a throwback in today's market and price driven business environment. Why the CBG even exists is a bit of a mystery. The answer is probably a legal one as they function solely as a buffer between the exhibs and the distribs. Why don't the studios deal directly with exhibs. on the virtual print fee fiasco? Why have a middleman?
The fear factor is in full swing, don't get caught up in the rhetoric and hyperbole. The CGBs days are numbered and they are desperate. They are reminiscent of a county fair huckster or a late night infomercial announcer - "Don't be left behind. Step right up and get your D-Cinema system. It's easy, fun, free, and guarantees your cinema's survival.
It's the ShamWow spiel of the cinema industry - don't be conned. If it sound too good to be true, well, remember Bernie Madoff.
Monday, January 31, 2011
THE CINEMA'S SALVATION ..... Hmmmm.
Have you ever gone to a department or grocery store where all the products have the same price? That would be crazy, right? But that is just what happens when you visit your local cinema. All the movies have the same price. Avatar costs the same as the hundredth version of Harry Meets Sally. Why?
For films, the studios do not complete on price but on content. The more people that visit the cinema to view a movie the more successful it is. But isn't this contrary to all basic marketing principals! Why should I pay $9 admission for Avatar ( which cost $150 million to produce) and $9 for a film that cost $15 million to produce. Why shouldn't films be priced based upon their preceived value to the marketplace - where some films cost less or more to view then others. Not all films are created equal and therefore all films should not be priced equally as they do not have equal value.
There were over 560 films released by the studios in 2010, of which the top 50 generated close to 70% of the total boxoffice. Obviously, the 560th film did not have the same worth as Toy Story 3, the number one film. Perhaps if the studios tiered there boxoffice admission pricing more people would be motivated to go to the cinema. You know, less price more volume. Does this concept ring a bell, studios? Isn't this marketing 101.
Film distributors and exhibitors need to re-think their business model from top to bottom and any reassessment, of any business, starts with pricing, product value, and competition. Charging the same price for very movie makes no logical sense in modern market and price driven economies.
Boxoffice admissions in the U.S. peaked in 2002 and have downtrended since (2010 admissions decreased 6% from 2009). This trend can not continue if the U.S. is to have a vibrant cinema as no industry can sustain this level of customer loss and be profitable. The exhibition side of the industry is already feeling the impact of this and until and unless all the players in the movie industry change their business strategy and tactics the downtrend will continue. Re-thinking the pricing of movies at the boxoffice is a good start.
Jim Lavorato, President
Entertainment Equipment Corp.
For films, the studios do not complete on price but on content. The more people that visit the cinema to view a movie the more successful it is. But isn't this contrary to all basic marketing principals! Why should I pay $9 admission for Avatar ( which cost $150 million to produce) and $9 for a film that cost $15 million to produce. Why shouldn't films be priced based upon their preceived value to the marketplace - where some films cost less or more to view then others. Not all films are created equal and therefore all films should not be priced equally as they do not have equal value.
There were over 560 films released by the studios in 2010, of which the top 50 generated close to 70% of the total boxoffice. Obviously, the 560th film did not have the same worth as Toy Story 3, the number one film. Perhaps if the studios tiered there boxoffice admission pricing more people would be motivated to go to the cinema. You know, less price more volume. Does this concept ring a bell, studios? Isn't this marketing 101.
Film distributors and exhibitors need to re-think their business model from top to bottom and any reassessment, of any business, starts with pricing, product value, and competition. Charging the same price for very movie makes no logical sense in modern market and price driven economies.
Boxoffice admissions in the U.S. peaked in 2002 and have downtrended since (2010 admissions decreased 6% from 2009). This trend can not continue if the U.S. is to have a vibrant cinema as no industry can sustain this level of customer loss and be profitable. The exhibition side of the industry is already feeling the impact of this and until and unless all the players in the movie industry change their business strategy and tactics the downtrend will continue. Re-thinking the pricing of movies at the boxoffice is a good start.
Jim Lavorato, President
Entertainment Equipment Corp.
Monday, January 17, 2011
3D HEALTH ISSUES
Panasonic Corp., the large Japanese electronics firm, issued a press release stating that it was "working closely with the Japanese government" in establishing an international set of rules to govern health issues surrounding 3D imaging and its potential negative effects on individuals.
Fumio Ohtsubo, President of Panasonic, said "We have already started the process of establishing broad 3D health and safety guidelines for electronics manufacturers, content makers, and broadcasters". Health issues, mainly regarding the use of active-shutter glasses (ASGs)- these are battery operated glasses which rapidly open and close slats to create the illusion of depth - has surfaced before, but now major players in the electronics industry are taking an active role. For example, Nintendo has put out a warning that prolonged use of their new 3DS 3D hand-held game console could cause damage to the eyesight of children six years and younger. And last week, LG Electronics, the large Korean display manufacturer, said it was changing its 3D technology to address concerns that the current industry standard regarding 3D imaging could be a contributing factor to 3D related illness and discomfort.
LG stated it was going to introduce an alternative method of production that involves placing a film on the screen and using polarized passive glasses to view 3D TV. This is in contrast to the present industry standard of using ASGs. Ten firms have signed up to use the new LG technology - termed FPR for film-patterned retarder - which raises concern that a 3D technology war may be in the making.
On the other side, Sony and Samsung, users of the ASG technology contend that ASGs allow for the best 3D on-screen imaging.
LG has stated that it will cease manufacturing screens that work with ASGs, which they contend casue blurred vision, dizziness, nausea and even more serious issues like photo-sensitive epilepsy experienced by some 3D viewers.
Panasonic's Ohtsubo further stated that "regardless of which technology approach the industry takes, it has to address the health concerns surrounding 3D as there are worries by the consumer that 3D makes certain people feel ill and that it may not be safe for children".
I believe Mr. Ohtsubo is correct, and that wide-spread acceptance of 3D by consumers for in-home entertainment will not take off until these issues are resolved. Luckily for the cinema the vast majority of theatres use passive 3D glasses - the ASGs were just too expensive.
Best and Happy/Healthy 3D Viewing at your Local Cinema
Jim Lavorato
Fumio Ohtsubo, President of Panasonic, said "We have already started the process of establishing broad 3D health and safety guidelines for electronics manufacturers, content makers, and broadcasters". Health issues, mainly regarding the use of active-shutter glasses (ASGs)- these are battery operated glasses which rapidly open and close slats to create the illusion of depth - has surfaced before, but now major players in the electronics industry are taking an active role. For example, Nintendo has put out a warning that prolonged use of their new 3DS 3D hand-held game console could cause damage to the eyesight of children six years and younger. And last week, LG Electronics, the large Korean display manufacturer, said it was changing its 3D technology to address concerns that the current industry standard regarding 3D imaging could be a contributing factor to 3D related illness and discomfort.
LG stated it was going to introduce an alternative method of production that involves placing a film on the screen and using polarized passive glasses to view 3D TV. This is in contrast to the present industry standard of using ASGs. Ten firms have signed up to use the new LG technology - termed FPR for film-patterned retarder - which raises concern that a 3D technology war may be in the making.
On the other side, Sony and Samsung, users of the ASG technology contend that ASGs allow for the best 3D on-screen imaging.
LG has stated that it will cease manufacturing screens that work with ASGs, which they contend casue blurred vision, dizziness, nausea and even more serious issues like photo-sensitive epilepsy experienced by some 3D viewers.
Panasonic's Ohtsubo further stated that "regardless of which technology approach the industry takes, it has to address the health concerns surrounding 3D as there are worries by the consumer that 3D makes certain people feel ill and that it may not be safe for children".
I believe Mr. Ohtsubo is correct, and that wide-spread acceptance of 3D by consumers for in-home entertainment will not take off until these issues are resolved. Luckily for the cinema the vast majority of theatres use passive 3D glasses - the ASGs were just too expensive.
Best and Happy/Healthy 3D Viewing at your Local Cinema
Jim Lavorato
Sunday, January 16, 2011
WHERE IS THE CINEMA GOING?
I really hate to beat up on the cinema (again) but current trends point to a none to rosy future.
Last year the domestic B.O. totalled $10.3 billion, down about 3% from '09. However of this total the top 25 films accounted for $4.7b or 46%. Since there were 561 films released this indicates that there is a skewing for certain types of films while the studios are producing a lot of films people just are not interested in viewing at a cinema - or anywhere else for that matter. Oh, by the way, the top 10 films accounted for 27.5% of the total B.O.
However, the average ticket price was up 7% to $7.95, due entirely to premium 3D pricing (of the top 25 films 11 were released in 3D) as ticket sales were down 6% to 1.29b. And that comes to the crux of this post - the decline in ticket sales which represents the biggest problem facing the cinema industry. A 6% decline in demand for any product is hugh and a really bad omen. U.S. cinema ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58b and have basically seen a steady decline reaching their lowest level in 2010. Not good given a growing U.S. population and the re-intro of 3D films, which Hollywood touted as the best thing since sliced bread.
Where are all the eyeballs going? Well, that's easy to figure, to every mobile device, game console, and social network, in a nutshell, the cinema is losing it luster and lure. If the top 25 films generate roughly 50% of the B.O. why produce/release over 500 films. And those were the same 25 films that generate the bulk of the international B.O. as well - which is even more skewed than the domestic B.O.
Something is wrong with this "picture", no pun intended.
The studios need to reassess their entire modus operendi, from what gets green lighted to the B.O. pricing structure. Why should it cost the same price to view Avatar as it does the 99th version of Harry Meets Sally, it makes no sense (a lot more on this topic in future posts).
With the obvious downtrend in movie attendance and the skewing of the B.O. gross to kid flix and high-impact, fantasy films the need to release 500 additional films (and lets face it, these films have no real product value in the video or TV market, except as filler and perhaps to keep Hollywood in full employ) is ridiculous.
Do I have the formula for box office success - NO, but making and releasing more films people are interested in viewing at a cinema (and we know the kinds of movies these are) and less films that play in empty theatres is a start.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Last year the domestic B.O. totalled $10.3 billion, down about 3% from '09. However of this total the top 25 films accounted for $4.7b or 46%. Since there were 561 films released this indicates that there is a skewing for certain types of films while the studios are producing a lot of films people just are not interested in viewing at a cinema - or anywhere else for that matter. Oh, by the way, the top 10 films accounted for 27.5% of the total B.O.
However, the average ticket price was up 7% to $7.95, due entirely to premium 3D pricing (of the top 25 films 11 were released in 3D) as ticket sales were down 6% to 1.29b. And that comes to the crux of this post - the decline in ticket sales which represents the biggest problem facing the cinema industry. A 6% decline in demand for any product is hugh and a really bad omen. U.S. cinema ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58b and have basically seen a steady decline reaching their lowest level in 2010. Not good given a growing U.S. population and the re-intro of 3D films, which Hollywood touted as the best thing since sliced bread.
Where are all the eyeballs going? Well, that's easy to figure, to every mobile device, game console, and social network, in a nutshell, the cinema is losing it luster and lure. If the top 25 films generate roughly 50% of the B.O. why produce/release over 500 films. And those were the same 25 films that generate the bulk of the international B.O. as well - which is even more skewed than the domestic B.O.
Something is wrong with this "picture", no pun intended.
The studios need to reassess their entire modus operendi, from what gets green lighted to the B.O. pricing structure. Why should it cost the same price to view Avatar as it does the 99th version of Harry Meets Sally, it makes no sense (a lot more on this topic in future posts).
With the obvious downtrend in movie attendance and the skewing of the B.O. gross to kid flix and high-impact, fantasy films the need to release 500 additional films (and lets face it, these films have no real product value in the video or TV market, except as filler and perhaps to keep Hollywood in full employ) is ridiculous.
Do I have the formula for box office success - NO, but making and releasing more films people are interested in viewing at a cinema (and we know the kinds of movies these are) and less films that play in empty theatres is a start.
Best and Happy Movie Going
Jim Lavorato
Sunday, January 09, 2011
CONSUMER ELECTRONIC (really big) SHOW
How do you organize an event attended by more people then a fair sized city - you don't With over 150,000 attendees the CES is best discribed as chaotic.
I attended several seminars sponsored by the Underwriters Laboratory and their meeting room was #28951 - it took me awhile to find it. But as over the top as the CES is it is a blast to attend.
If pressed, to boil down the 2011 CES to one word it would be "mobility".
3D-TV was in mass but underwhelmed, as there was nothing we haven't seen before and there is no real content available thus no motivation for consumers to support 3D-TV as yet. Audio wasn't even an afterthought, just more iPod docks and some auto goodies.
It was all about MObility, big MO, which is understandable as it reflects the on-going transition of humans moving from a wired to wireless world, spurred on right now by high-speed 4G connectivity. Mobile devices - smart phones, tablets, gaming platforms etc. - were center stage. I predict that in less then 7 years, most of what people and businesses do on PCs will be in the cloud so only web connected devices will be required. From accessing financial data, to transaction purchasing (phone or tablet will act as credit/debit card), emailing, texting, and data receipt and transmission will all be done on mobile devices.
This trend is looming large and moving fast and it will have profound impact in ways that we cannot imagine.
Best
Jim Lavorato
I attended several seminars sponsored by the Underwriters Laboratory and their meeting room was #28951 - it took me awhile to find it. But as over the top as the CES is it is a blast to attend.
If pressed, to boil down the 2011 CES to one word it would be "mobility".
3D-TV was in mass but underwhelmed, as there was nothing we haven't seen before and there is no real content available thus no motivation for consumers to support 3D-TV as yet. Audio wasn't even an afterthought, just more iPod docks and some auto goodies.
It was all about MObility, big MO, which is understandable as it reflects the on-going transition of humans moving from a wired to wireless world, spurred on right now by high-speed 4G connectivity. Mobile devices - smart phones, tablets, gaming platforms etc. - were center stage. I predict that in less then 7 years, most of what people and businesses do on PCs will be in the cloud so only web connected devices will be required. From accessing financial data, to transaction purchasing (phone or tablet will act as credit/debit card), emailing, texting, and data receipt and transmission will all be done on mobile devices.
This trend is looming large and moving fast and it will have profound impact in ways that we cannot imagine.
Best
Jim Lavorato
Friday, December 31, 2010
NO LONGER A CHEAP DATE !
Going into the holiday season the U.S. cinema boxoffice gross was up slightly over 1% vs '09; however, the holiday movies proved to be a major Christ-miss and the B.O. slid into negative territory ending the year 4% behind as the holiday B.O. ended 44% below 2009's take. Worse still, admissions were down a whopping 6% for the year. Obviously no one in the industry wants this trend to continue, especially in light of grosses being bolstered by premium 3D pricing (for 2010 average ticket prices were up 6%).
The global B.O. mirrored the U.S. results with the only bright spot - you guessed it - China, where the B.O. grew by 60% (addendum below).
What this dismal 2010 performance tell us is that people believe that going to the cinema is becoming too expensive, particularly for films they have no burning desire to view. They believe admission and concession prices are too high and that the movie going experience doesn't provide the entertainment value it once did.
The cinema may be pricing itself out of business irregardless of admonitions from many in the industry that contend going to the movies is still inexpensive as compared to other forms of entertainment. The point they miss is that one shouldn't compare going to the cinema vs. attending a football game but against viewing that same movie via on-demand HDTV - at a much lower cost.
Prognosticating is never absoulte but by analyzing trends you can get a sense of which events will shape the future and prepare for them:
- The conversion of film to digital projection at cinemas will slow. Not required to exhibit 3D, as there are on-film systems available for that. And the quick obsolescence of the rather expensive equipment makes conversion much less attractive for exhibitors.
- Alternative content at cinemas is at best a peripheral revenue generator and will remain so.
- The biggest threat for cinemas in the future will be on-line streaming which will continue to take its toll on B.O. attendance unless Hollywood can contain its greed for ever faster returns on content delivery.
- People still enjoy going to the cinema but more and more it will be because they want to view a movie at a venue that provides them a special out-of-home experience.
- With 30-40 releases scheduled for 2011, the 3D craze could easily turn into 3D fatigue. I believe people will begin to assess each 3D movie as to whether or not it's the type of movie that benefits from the 3D effect and merits their payment of the 3D up-charge.
It's going to be rough sailing for the movie industry going forward. So, every exhibitor must be on their best game and take advantage of every opportunity and anticipate and react quickly to every adversity.
China addendum:
Representing only 6% of worldwide cinema gross B.O., China's share can be expected to increase significantly in 2011 and beyond. It will be lifting its ban on allowing only 20-30 foreign films into the Chinese market each year (part of its deal for admission into the WTO). With only 8,000 screens China has a lot of room for growth (the U.S. has 38,000) and it wants and is starting to develop its own cinema industry.
Best and Happy New Year!
Jim
The global B.O. mirrored the U.S. results with the only bright spot - you guessed it - China, where the B.O. grew by 60% (addendum below).
What this dismal 2010 performance tell us is that people believe that going to the cinema is becoming too expensive, particularly for films they have no burning desire to view. They believe admission and concession prices are too high and that the movie going experience doesn't provide the entertainment value it once did.
The cinema may be pricing itself out of business irregardless of admonitions from many in the industry that contend going to the movies is still inexpensive as compared to other forms of entertainment. The point they miss is that one shouldn't compare going to the cinema vs. attending a football game but against viewing that same movie via on-demand HDTV - at a much lower cost.
Prognosticating is never absoulte but by analyzing trends you can get a sense of which events will shape the future and prepare for them:
- The conversion of film to digital projection at cinemas will slow. Not required to exhibit 3D, as there are on-film systems available for that. And the quick obsolescence of the rather expensive equipment makes conversion much less attractive for exhibitors.
- Alternative content at cinemas is at best a peripheral revenue generator and will remain so.
- The biggest threat for cinemas in the future will be on-line streaming which will continue to take its toll on B.O. attendance unless Hollywood can contain its greed for ever faster returns on content delivery.
- People still enjoy going to the cinema but more and more it will be because they want to view a movie at a venue that provides them a special out-of-home experience.
- With 30-40 releases scheduled for 2011, the 3D craze could easily turn into 3D fatigue. I believe people will begin to assess each 3D movie as to whether or not it's the type of movie that benefits from the 3D effect and merits their payment of the 3D up-charge.
It's going to be rough sailing for the movie industry going forward. So, every exhibitor must be on their best game and take advantage of every opportunity and anticipate and react quickly to every adversity.
China addendum:
Representing only 6% of worldwide cinema gross B.O., China's share can be expected to increase significantly in 2011 and beyond. It will be lifting its ban on allowing only 20-30 foreign films into the Chinese market each year (part of its deal for admission into the WTO). With only 8,000 screens China has a lot of room for growth (the U.S. has 38,000) and it wants and is starting to develop its own cinema industry.
Best and Happy New Year!
Jim
Monday, December 27, 2010
3D - Cinema Fixture or Fad?
Whether or not you believe 3D is a permanent box office draw or just a passing fad, for now at least, certain 3D films do enhance box office grosses and with over 40 3D flix scheduled for release in 2011 it may be time for movie exhibs to consider 3D if they haven't already done so.
With many exhibs. facing this challenge, for 2011 Cinema Training Central will be offering a new workshop specific to addressing this very issue. Entitled " D-Cinema and 3D - All the Options", this seminar/workshop provides a complete analysis and discussion of all of the D-Cinema projection systems(including the new Kodak laser projector) and all of the current 3D options - four digitally based and the two on-film. Studied are the costs and features of each system and how relevant (or not) they are for each exhibs' cinema.
So, if D-Cinema and/or 3D is in your plans or you are just looking for unbiased information on the latest digital cinema and 3D technologies, this low cost workshop will provide you the information and data necessary to make an educated and confident decision, and perhaps save you a lot of time and money!
For information on this and all of the other training programs offered by CTC go to www.gotoeec.com, or simply reply to this post.
See you at CTC!
With many exhibs. facing this challenge, for 2011 Cinema Training Central will be offering a new workshop specific to addressing this very issue. Entitled " D-Cinema and 3D - All the Options", this seminar/workshop provides a complete analysis and discussion of all of the D-Cinema projection systems(including the new Kodak laser projector) and all of the current 3D options - four digitally based and the two on-film. Studied are the costs and features of each system and how relevant (or not) they are for each exhibs' cinema.
So, if D-Cinema and/or 3D is in your plans or you are just looking for unbiased information on the latest digital cinema and 3D technologies, this low cost workshop will provide you the information and data necessary to make an educated and confident decision, and perhaps save you a lot of time and money!
For information on this and all of the other training programs offered by CTC go to www.gotoeec.com, or simply reply to this post.
See you at CTC!
10 Years After
Celebrating its 10th anniversary in 2011, the only constant for Cinema Training Central, over the last decade was change! CTC's seminars and workshops were constantly being refreshed, revised, and upgraded to address the fast-paced changes taking place in the cinema industry. Through it all, CTC not only survivied but thrived by enhancing its relevance and reputation.
Although others have tried, today CTC remains the One and Only provider of structured, targeted, and hands-on training for the cinema exhibition industry. Having trained over 800 individuals from all over the world since its inception we anticipate CTC's success and support to continue as we move forward and begin a new decade. CTC will continue to offer new and relevant training to meet the changing and demanding needs of our cinema customers.
Although others have tried, today CTC remains the One and Only provider of structured, targeted, and hands-on training for the cinema exhibition industry. Having trained over 800 individuals from all over the world since its inception we anticipate CTC's success and support to continue as we move forward and begin a new decade. CTC will continue to offer new and relevant training to meet the changing and demanding needs of our cinema customers.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Hollywood v. Wall Street
As a follow up to my June post on the battle between Wall Street and Hollywood regarding the trading of box office futures contracts, an explanation of how these financial derivatives are traded and who would benefit or not from their implementation is necessary for movie exhibitors to understand.
HOW FUTURES CONTRACTS WORK
Each movie has it own contract. The price of that contract is based upon the current market consensus of how much a particular movie will earn over the first four weeks of its initial release. Investors profit from either their prediction on the success of the movie (buy long) or its anticipated limited gross (sell short).
Contract pricing is based on 1/1,000,000th of the total Domestic Box Office Receipts collected during the first four weeks after the movie's release. If the movie exhibits longer, any ticket sales will not count towards the value of the contract.
So, for example, if the market determines that a movie will bring in $100 million during its first four weeks and an investor believes that it will do $100 million or more they would buy a contract(s) valued at $100 each. On the other side, if they believe the film will not reach its predicted $100 million gross they would sell a contract for $100.
If-in this example-the movie grosses $200 million the contract seller would lose their $100 investment while the buyer would make $100 and double their investment.
There are two exchanges vying to trade box office futures - the Cantor Exchange and the Trend Exchange. They differ in that the Cantor Exchange would allow traders to buy and sell contracts for as little as $50, while the Trend Exchange will require a minimum $5,000 investment.
Proponents of allowing trading in box office futures believe that it would help Hollywood hedge its losses, essentially offering insurance that would allow risk to be defrayed to traders - similar to a farmer hedging his corn crop. And that such a market would be very useful for, among others, independent movie producers and distributors as they could hedge their movie investment in the event it turns out to "bomb" at the box office.
BENEFIT TO EXHIBITORS
Like the farmer, the movie exhibitor could use the futures contracts as a hedge against a film not producing the box office grosses expected and reaping the benefits of a short seller by selling futures forward. If the movie does not do well the exhibitor benefits by collecting on the contract. If the movie grosses well or even better than anticipated the exhibitor loses the investment on the contract but reaps the rewards from a good box office take. It's essentially buying insurance against a potential risk.
As of today, Hollywood , by active and effective lobbying of the U.S. Congress, has so far prevented the trading in box office futures. However, my guess is that it's just a matter of time before the trading of these contracts becomes reality. There is just too much money at stake in the production and exhibition of movies for it not to happen.
Jim Lavorato
HOW FUTURES CONTRACTS WORK
Each movie has it own contract. The price of that contract is based upon the current market consensus of how much a particular movie will earn over the first four weeks of its initial release. Investors profit from either their prediction on the success of the movie (buy long) or its anticipated limited gross (sell short).
Contract pricing is based on 1/1,000,000th of the total Domestic Box Office Receipts collected during the first four weeks after the movie's release. If the movie exhibits longer, any ticket sales will not count towards the value of the contract.
So, for example, if the market determines that a movie will bring in $100 million during its first four weeks and an investor believes that it will do $100 million or more they would buy a contract(s) valued at $100 each. On the other side, if they believe the film will not reach its predicted $100 million gross they would sell a contract for $100.
If-in this example-the movie grosses $200 million the contract seller would lose their $100 investment while the buyer would make $100 and double their investment.
There are two exchanges vying to trade box office futures - the Cantor Exchange and the Trend Exchange. They differ in that the Cantor Exchange would allow traders to buy and sell contracts for as little as $50, while the Trend Exchange will require a minimum $5,000 investment.
Proponents of allowing trading in box office futures believe that it would help Hollywood hedge its losses, essentially offering insurance that would allow risk to be defrayed to traders - similar to a farmer hedging his corn crop. And that such a market would be very useful for, among others, independent movie producers and distributors as they could hedge their movie investment in the event it turns out to "bomb" at the box office.
BENEFIT TO EXHIBITORS
Like the farmer, the movie exhibitor could use the futures contracts as a hedge against a film not producing the box office grosses expected and reaping the benefits of a short seller by selling futures forward. If the movie does not do well the exhibitor benefits by collecting on the contract. If the movie grosses well or even better than anticipated the exhibitor loses the investment on the contract but reaps the rewards from a good box office take. It's essentially buying insurance against a potential risk.
As of today, Hollywood , by active and effective lobbying of the U.S. Congress, has so far prevented the trading in box office futures. However, my guess is that it's just a matter of time before the trading of these contracts becomes reality. There is just too much money at stake in the production and exhibition of movies for it not to happen.
Jim Lavorato
Monday, September 13, 2010
STREAMING - EXHIBITORS' OTHER COMPETITION
Consumers have shifted away from purchasing DVDs to rental and in the home video rental arena - Netflix and RedBox are the only games in town. Both companies saw an opportunity to provide more convenient and less-expensive ways for consumers to rent movies and both have benefited mightily. Movie rental stores like Movie Gallery and Hollywood Video have closed, and Blockbuster is struggling to stay afloat. But the future in home movie viewing is all about internet downloads and streaming, and when it comes to internet distribution Netflix and RedBox (which both have movie streaming initiatives) will face heavy competition from the likes of Amazon, AT&T, Google, and Microsoft to just name several.
I expect physical DVDs to be around for some time but there will be a continuous shift to movies delivered via broadband internet streaming.
So the movie industry is changing and every movie exhibitor should be thinking about the future and making plans now to confront the opportunities and uncertainties the future will bring.
I expect physical DVDs to be around for some time but there will be a continuous shift to movies delivered via broadband internet streaming.
So the movie industry is changing and every movie exhibitor should be thinking about the future and making plans now to confront the opportunities and uncertainties the future will bring.
Friday, September 10, 2010
MOVIES RIDING HIGH ON 3D
With a boost from a lackluster economy - as people seek affordable distraction from their financial worries - movie exhibition and home videos are doing well.
A quick look over the shoulder tells us that the global boxoffice hit an all-time high of $29.9 billion in 2009 - up 7.6%. The U.S./Canada market accounted for $10.6 billion of the total, up 10% over '08, while the international B.O. hit $19.3b.
Dig deeper and you find that in 2009 3D films accounted for 11% of the total U.S. boxoffice - compared with just 2% in 2008. Twenty 3D films were released in '09 compared with only eight in '08. Exhibitors, overall, net a 20% profit margin on 2D movies but 30% on 3D. So, exhibitors continue to convert screens to 3D - both digital or on-film systems.
The question becomes - "will there be 3D fatigue"? Will the public tire of too many 3D releases? Well, as always, it all boils down to quality of product - good 3D films will bring in lots of moviegoers. A good test will be "Harry Potter" and the "Tron Legacy" - both would probably be very good 2D earners but in 3D they should be huge smash hits.
With over 40 3D films scheduled for release in 2011 the 3D craze will continue to drive the boxoffice higher even with the huge success of "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" at the beginning of '09.
Look for continued price reductions for both D-Cinema and 3D systems alike.
A quick look over the shoulder tells us that the global boxoffice hit an all-time high of $29.9 billion in 2009 - up 7.6%. The U.S./Canada market accounted for $10.6 billion of the total, up 10% over '08, while the international B.O. hit $19.3b.
Dig deeper and you find that in 2009 3D films accounted for 11% of the total U.S. boxoffice - compared with just 2% in 2008. Twenty 3D films were released in '09 compared with only eight in '08. Exhibitors, overall, net a 20% profit margin on 2D movies but 30% on 3D. So, exhibitors continue to convert screens to 3D - both digital or on-film systems.
The question becomes - "will there be 3D fatigue"? Will the public tire of too many 3D releases? Well, as always, it all boils down to quality of product - good 3D films will bring in lots of moviegoers. A good test will be "Harry Potter" and the "Tron Legacy" - both would probably be very good 2D earners but in 3D they should be huge smash hits.
With over 40 3D films scheduled for release in 2011 the 3D craze will continue to drive the boxoffice higher even with the huge success of "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" at the beginning of '09.
Look for continued price reductions for both D-Cinema and 3D systems alike.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
CTC TRAINING - NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER
The movie industry is in a major transition phase as both exhibitors and distributors face new and challenging changes. Some of these challenges require proactive initiatives, others are out of their control - all must be planned for.
Exhibitors must decide to invest in 3D or not - be it digital or on-film. Either way - exhibitors must get the best information and training available - not only in their 3D decision but in dealing with the coming competition from digital streaming of movies to a cache of consumer electronic devices unimagined just a few years ago.
CTC provides exhibitors informed and unbiased training using the most up-to-date information. For example, during the upcoming September training week (9/20 - 9/24) all of the training programs will address the 3D issue in some way.
It is not too late to register for a September course - email us right NOW!
Exhibitors must decide to invest in 3D or not - be it digital or on-film. Either way - exhibitors must get the best information and training available - not only in their 3D decision but in dealing with the coming competition from digital streaming of movies to a cache of consumer electronic devices unimagined just a few years ago.
CTC provides exhibitors informed and unbiased training using the most up-to-date information. For example, during the upcoming September training week (9/20 - 9/24) all of the training programs will address the 3D issue in some way.
It is not too late to register for a September course - email us right NOW!
Thursday, July 01, 2010
3DTV - IS IT SAFE?
..."Viewing TV using the 3D function can cause motion sickness, and perceptional after effects. Some viewers may experience an epileptic seizure or stroke when exposed to flashing images - please consult with a medical specialist before using the 3D function."
..."In the event you experience dizziness, nausea, or other discomfort while viewing 3DTV images, discontinue use and rest your eyes."
..."Do not watch 3DTV continuously for multiple hours. When viewing stereoscopic images, please take a break every 15 minutes."
The above three quotes are not from a consumer advocate group or medical association but are warnings from 3DTV manufacturers! In this case, Samsung, Panasonic, and Hyundai respectively. These 3DTV manufacturers' concerns are imminent, as it is estimated that 3DTV sales this year will top 6.9 million sets.
Currently there exists evidence that 3D viewing can cause - at best - fatigue and discomfort and - at worst - serious visual and perception problems. This evidence concerns what is termed the "vergence-accommodation conflict." This is caused by a home 3D viewer's eyes focusing at a distance that differs from the point of visual convergence. In the real world, focus and convergence are correlated, but if you place someone in front of a stereoscope display, that relationship is entirely lost. This conflict can lead to a variety of health issues with prolonged home 3DTV viewing.
The industry believes that reproducing the cinema 3D experience in the home will solve the problem. For example, Panasonic is currently working with the Univ. of Southern California on research to determine the "psycho-physical" effects of long-term 3D viewing at home. Panasonic's V.P. of Corporate & Government Affairs, Peter Fannon, feels "Full 3D display in the home at 120 Hz most closely replicates the experience of natural vision since it effectively presents everything the human eye can see". While Mike Kim, American Sales Director, Hyundai, however, sees the future of 3DTV viewing with passive, circular polarized glasses - like those used in cinemas. "We believe passive glasses result in less eye strain and prevent flicker."
Cinemas need not worry about these issues as the 3D viewing at cinemas is not prolonged; although, a small percentage of moviegoers complain of headaches and sight fatigue.
You'll probably hear and read more on this 3DTV health issue as time goes on, and we'll keep you informed as this issue unfolds.
..."In the event you experience dizziness, nausea, or other discomfort while viewing 3DTV images, discontinue use and rest your eyes."
..."Do not watch 3DTV continuously for multiple hours. When viewing stereoscopic images, please take a break every 15 minutes."
The above three quotes are not from a consumer advocate group or medical association but are warnings from 3DTV manufacturers! In this case, Samsung, Panasonic, and Hyundai respectively. These 3DTV manufacturers' concerns are imminent, as it is estimated that 3DTV sales this year will top 6.9 million sets.
Currently there exists evidence that 3D viewing can cause - at best - fatigue and discomfort and - at worst - serious visual and perception problems. This evidence concerns what is termed the "vergence-accommodation conflict." This is caused by a home 3D viewer's eyes focusing at a distance that differs from the point of visual convergence. In the real world, focus and convergence are correlated, but if you place someone in front of a stereoscope display, that relationship is entirely lost. This conflict can lead to a variety of health issues with prolonged home 3DTV viewing.
The industry believes that reproducing the cinema 3D experience in the home will solve the problem. For example, Panasonic is currently working with the Univ. of Southern California on research to determine the "psycho-physical" effects of long-term 3D viewing at home. Panasonic's V.P. of Corporate & Government Affairs, Peter Fannon, feels "Full 3D display in the home at 120 Hz most closely replicates the experience of natural vision since it effectively presents everything the human eye can see". While Mike Kim, American Sales Director, Hyundai, however, sees the future of 3DTV viewing with passive, circular polarized glasses - like those used in cinemas. "We believe passive glasses result in less eye strain and prevent flicker."
Cinemas need not worry about these issues as the 3D viewing at cinemas is not prolonged; although, a small percentage of moviegoers complain of headaches and sight fatigue.
You'll probably hear and read more on this 3DTV health issue as time goes on, and we'll keep you informed as this issue unfolds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
