Follow-on to part one of a three-part installment,
"Revival of the Fittest: Evolution of the Movie House Experience."
In 1948 the Supreme Court ruled big film industry control
over the movie business violated anti-trust laws. Because the major
Hollywood studios vertically controlled production, distribution and
exhibition, the oligopoly prevented competition within the marketplace.
Although loosely enforced (if at all), the divorcement decree still exists today.
With the FCC recently relaxing rules against
cross-ownership between television, print and radio, and the new era of digital
distribution and exhibition growing strong, there is reason to wonder if the
restriction on Hollywood vertical integration is even relevant anymore.
Lifting the ban would allow Hollywood to once again bolster up movie theaters,
bringing back the customer base that is waning.
But is it really
their responsibility to intervene? I think not. After the
divorcement of production/distribution and exhibition, the relationship between
Hollywood studios and movie theaters compartmentalized. Production
companies draw crowds in by focused marketing on a particular film, while
owners of movies theaters are responsible for facility advertising and
sustainment. This relationship passes accountability of the movie theater
over to its management team as a separate business entity. Movie theaters
are their own business. They are not entitled to “bail outs” by the
production company. Their profit-loss margin is just that – theirs.
The truth is that
more and more theaters are closing their doors across the country. But if
you look closely at each as a distinct entity unrelated to its product (the
movie), you have a service-oriented business that is individually responsible
for inventory, advertising and market relevance. No matter what the
business, if that model does not make changes with its industry, their failure
is inevitable. Most movie theaters are not doing much in regards to
service improvements, hence the growing number of closures. We can lament
that one of the world’s favorite leisure activities is fading away, but it’s
not simply because of changing times. American movie theaters are fading
away because of bad business management and virtually no brand
development. Result: no brand loyalty and decreasing relevance.
No more is a film
enough to draw a crowd. People opt to stay home if all they want to do is
watch a movie. Not to mention films aren't promising enough anymore
to peel people away from their 42-inch flat screen plasma t.v. and endless
trips to the snack bar (the kitchen). Some theaters are turning to
outside agencies in an effort to develop marketing
strategies. For example, West World Media out of Connecticut
specializes globally in exhibitor and venue-marketing services, strategically
directing customers back into dimly lit caves of fantasy. Yet at large,
the issues plaguing movie-houses are internally rooted: lack of
ownership. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results. The popcorn is still
bad. The floors are still sticky. The prices are too high in
relation to the non-experience movie-going now is. If more theaters would
take on projects like facility overhaul or strategizing with project
specialists externally, they might have a fighting chance. Thankfully
some places in America have gotten a clue and are actively enhancing the
theater’s appeal. Alamo Drafthouse Cinema employs a chief
creative officer solely responsible for creating unique programming
events. Fox Restaurant Concepts marries film and dining
into a boutique experience. Other major chains are following in suite by
offering special dinner seating elevated above the general audience.
There are many options available that do not include dependence on Hollywood
for hand-outs, and practical business sense eliminates excuses for
entitlement. The success of a movie theater is dependent on the
creativity and management of its owner. But having a handful of specialty
theaters will not save the theater experience as a whole. What other
projects can be implemented to “save the clock tower?!” A problem is only
worth pointing out if possible solutions follow. In part 3 of the "Revival
of the Fittest..." series, we’ll talk about infusing the portals of
escapism with new life.
No comments:
Post a Comment