AMC’s Latest Innovation: More Ads At The Movie Theater
from the this-one-goes-to-11 dept
During pandemic lockdowns, you might recall how AMC executives threw a temper tantrum because companies like Comcast/NBC began experimenting with more innovative movie release windows. AMC execs were mad because the pandemic highlighted how the 90-day gap between the time a movie appears in theaters and its streaming or DVD release was exposed as both dated and stupid.
Comcast (successfully) experimented with not only shortening the window, but eliminating it entirely. At the time, AMC Theatre CEO Adam Aron pouted incessantly, insisting that Comcast films would never again appear in AMC theaters, before ultimately having to retract the silly threat.
In the years since, AMC execs have had a lot of time to think about how they’d like to adjust to the modern film audience. One big idea was to start charging customers even more money if they wanted better seats. And more recently they’ve taken to pushing even more real-world advertisements on paying customers before the movie starts.
Even before COVID, other major theater companies, like Cinemark Theatres and Regal Cinemas, had been loading up to five minutes of ads ahead of movies. AMC had initially rejected joining the effort, correctly noting that they worried consumers would “react quite negatively to the concept.”
That was then, this is now. AMC, struggling to make as much money as it would like, has reversed course and will be adding more ads. Which is tricky because it already runs 25-30 minutes of trailers, ads, and assorted gibberish before movies begin already:
“The deal takes effect July 1, just in time for Universal’s Jurassic World Rebirth and DC Studios/Warner Bros.’ Superman. AMC is already known for its lengthy preshow time, which runs 25 to 30 minutes, so it will have to reconfigure its lineup — which includes the famous Nicole Kidman spot promoting the “magic” of moviegoing — to allow for the new ads without going over the half-hour mark.”
Annoyed customers are still going to the movies, but they’re showing up later to accommodate for all the ads. One recent industry study found that only 60 percent of moviegoers this year were in their seats when trailers started playing. In NY and LA, 42 percent of moviegoers were in their seats in time to see every trailer.
This is yet another enshittification cycle that shows no sign of relenting. To give Wall Street its expected impossibly growing quarterly returns, AMC can’t afford to actually provide things the audience wants (lower prices, smaller crowds, better quality films and food). So they’re on a path of a sort of brand cannibalization in which annoyances grow as the theater experience quality shrinks, driving annoyed users ultimately to other experiences (like piracy).
Once a company’s on this path there’s really no reversal if they want to avoid an investor revolt, so there’s simply no telling what bad idea (or eroded principle) comes next for AMC.
Filed Under: advertisements, competition, consumers, enshittification, film, innovation, movies, preshow, prices, theater
Companies: amc, cinemark, comcast, regal cinemas
Comments on “AMC’s Latest Innovation: More Ads At The Movie Theater”
Was it successful? Haven’t looked into it super closely, but from what I’ve heard, streaming releases cannibalized big box office releases, and it was a real problem both for cinemas and producers.
Trailers are ads. So it’s not “up to five minutes”; it’s way beyond five minutes, and probably has been since I first attended a movie theater circa 1985. (Until some time in the mid-1990s, trailers were the only ads shown.)
Mike likes to talk about how “ads are content”, but the fact is that trailers—like most other ads—are things that few members of the public ever wanted.
The name “trailer” actually hints at this. They were named because they’d follow (“trail”) the movie people were there to see. That didn’t last very long, because everyone would just leave when the movie ended. (Keep in mind that there were basically no end-credits in those days; maybe a “the end” screen would pop up for a few seconds. So there was no impediment to staying for the trailers; people just didn’t want to.)
I’m kind of surprised theaters haven’t started offering to tell people the real start time for a bit of extra money.
Re:
I’ve heard that in some countries, newspapers used to tell the readership what time the movie really started, in the same section as all the movie adverts. Maybe they still do?
Some countries even passed legislation requiring the theaters to publish the accurate start times in their schedules and movie section ads. That might get me back into theaters here.
(While they’re at it, they could pass laws about acceptable noise exposure/decibel levels, too.)
Re: Re:
Workplace safety rules do apply to the employees, who, depending on the volume setting, might be legally required to have hearing protection, and can demand it or report their employer if not provided. While I wouldn’t expect much enforcement from the U.S.A. right now, other countries have these laws too. And, as a customer, you could bring your own protective earmuffs (being less likely than earplugs to cause wax-related problems); any store that sells power tools is likely to have them in stock.
Ads are the major reason I no longer bother with movie theaters. Everything ends up on streaming sooner or later and I’m in no hurry.
Maybe theaters will start selling ad-free movie tickets? Also oaf-free. Anyone acts up in those showings, they get dragged out to the parking lot by their heels, I’d pay 2X the ticket price for the chance to see that. Better than the movie.
Re:
No hurry? Great, because streaming’s already making people wait for ads. I watched a movie via Amazon Prime at a relative’s house, and it stopped halfway through for some unskippable ads (after this had already happened before it let us start watching).
“Not many”, they always say at first. But streaming, like theaters, never used to have any. TV ad time has more than doubled since the 1960s (from 7-8 minutes per hour to sometimes almost 20), and I certainly don’t remember anything like 25 minutes of movie trailers from my youth.
Why? In what other area of business has anything like this happened? There was never any way to pay extra for ad-free editions of newspapers and magazines; many continued to increase the number of advertisements (as rates went down), and decrease the desirable content, right till they died. And contrary to popular belief, cable TV never offered ad-free versions of otherwise ad-supported channels.
Re: Re:
Both music and movie/show streaming offers ad-free subscription tiers, at least for now. Even Youtube Premium is supposed to be a subscription that removes ads on videos. So I’m not sure why you’re making it sound like paying a premium to get rid of ads is something that’s never happened before.
Re: Re: Re:
As I understand it, Youtube Premium removes ads injected by Youtube, but not ads injected by video creators (which are extremely common). As for other services, I just forgot about the ad-free tiers; I’ve been avoiding giving these assholes money since the DeCSS and Napster days, and have only seen them at other people’s homes—and those people, despite paying, had to deal with ads.
Anyway, are there examples of this happening outside of digital subscriptions? I suppose I could live billboard-free by “paying extra” to move to somewhere that bans them. But I’ve never heard of any type of theater doing such a thing. It would be kind of interesting for the “cheapskates” to see some ads, and then see a several-minute break while the ad-free buyers walk in.
Re: Re: Re:
People pay for YouTube Premium? LOL
i have a friend that just a couple weeks ago had described this to me. Must have been an AMC theater. He did note there was one (1) trailer, and 30 minutes of ads.
And now it is meant to be worse?
Nope
Someone would have to pay me to get me into a movie theater. There’s absolutely nothing good about the experience any more – and I say that as someone who once went to the movies 10-12X a year.
‘AMC’S Latest “Innovation” : More ads at the Mobie Theater’
Fixed that for you.
Even better
I really hope they start interrupting movies with ads every 10 minutes. That would be awesome!
The darn thing is that I do believe in the “magic of moviegoing”. Back in the Before Times, we’d get a friend crew together and stroll through Boston Common to the multiplex on Tremont Street… an AMC itself, even. Seeing things there like Inception and the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes made for good spectacle and pleasant memories. But over the years, the genuine joy of casual entertainment has been leeched away. My more recent cinema-going makes me sound like a ghastly snob: “Oh, yes, the most … mainstream film I have gone to see must have been Almodovar’s Dolor y Gloria.” I ingest plenty of audiovisual junk food, I promise; it’s just that popcorn flicks aren’t worth the trip anymore.
My favorite recurring theater “ad” is the “MOVIES ARE BETTER IN THE THEATER” reminders that get shoved in two or three times.
…I’m already here, in the theater, to see the movie. You already succeeded, now desist before you push me into being contrary.
Re:
Reminds me of every time on the radio they play an ad to convince you to listen to radio.
First, adding more ads creates a downward spiral: people learn there are 30 minutes of ads, so they show up 30 minutes later. Then the theater adds more ads, so people continue to show up later.
Second, I thought the whole point of ads was to get people interested in your product. Do companies that run ads in theaters really expect a return on their investment if people either show up to see the ad or actively avoid it?
Third, has anyone taken a closer look at the Nicole Kidman “magic of movie going” ad? She’s in the theater entirely by herself! Where’s the audience? Where are the crowds of people buying tickets?
Or is the ad saying that if we go to the movies, we’ll get the theater all to ourselves? While a prive screening sounds fun, I can’t believe the theater would make much money.