MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Ticket Prices… Tickets Sold… Slumpy The Whale

So… NATO (National Association of Theater Owners… the other NATO) has come out with their Q4 and 2011 Year End figures on ticket prices at US movie exhibitors.

And the answer is…

Inconclusive.

What we know from this exercise is that, in theory, movie tickets were more expensive in Q2 2011 than any other quarter. Of course, this makes no sense. So what we actually know is that ticket prices are static in most quarters and almost always go up – when they go up – at the beginning of summer, when the big movies are about to land.

Next time you read a story about “increasing ticket prices” driving away audiences, remember than the “average ticket price” went up 4 cents in 2011 from 2010. Yeah… that kept people at home.

Of course, these price fluctuations from last year have no clear correlation to rising tickets for a normal movie experience and almost everything to do with the amount of 3D being sold in the marketplace in any quarter. These numbers also fail to account for children’s admissions, which are a big part of the annual box office. Conversely, these numbers don’t count “adult only ” hard-R movies either.

The quarterlies themselves don’t really make an extreme amount sense either.

Q1: $7.86
Q2: $8.06
Q3: $7.94
Q4: $7.83

Q3 was where most of the 3D heat was, with Transformers 3 and Harry Potter 8 both doing over $350m domestic, plus Cars 2 holdover, Captain America, and The Smurfs. That’s over $1.1 billion in 3D-available gross in a quarter. Q2 did around half of that amount. Q1 did under $350m in 3D-available biz. And Q4 did a little over $500m in 3D-available.

However… Hangover 2 and Bridesmaids were both rated R and represented a big chunk of the revenue of the quarter… in adult-priced tickets. Fast Five also probably skewed a bit towards adult-priced tickets.

2011 Average Ticket price: $7.93

It’s interesting… according to NATO, we say a 33¢ price hike – the biggest ever, at that time – from 2006 to 2007. Another 30¢ from 2007 – 2008. 32¢ more in 2009. And then a “massive” 39¢ in 2010. So from 2006-2010, the average went up $1.38 per ticket or a 21% increase in the average in this period… which is unprecedented.

So, in trying to expand my thinking, I asked NATO. And I was reminded that these numbers do not necessarily reflect price changes at all. They are equally, if not more influenced by the kinds of movies that are doing business. So, more tickets being bought by adults means a high average price per ticket sold. And conversely, a quarter with a lot of tickets sold for a family title can bring down the average. Similar issue with the 3D bump.

There are some years with actual ticket price changes, particularly in the mid-2000s, when more high-end multiplexes were opening or re-opening. (Another factor are “luxury theaters,” like Arclight or Gold Class, that have more expensive basic tickets.)

So when you ask, “Are tickets cheaper today than they were last year,” the answer is, “No one knows.” Why? Because it depends where you are going to the movies, what kind of movie you are seeing, whether you are going to 3D or IMAX, matinee or prime-time, etc, etc.

Our own Len Klady will soon publish his year-end analysis of the box office and it’s – forgive me – the same old, same old. “Kids are turning to other interests. Will they come back?”

They haven’t left. What’s remarkable is that as hard as the studios have tried to develop other revenue streams that will allow them to dump theatrical, the theatrical business is not only healthy, but thriving. If you eliminate Q1 from the year-to-year comparisons – Q1 2010 was pumped up to an unmatchable extreme, $550m more than Q1 2011, by Avatar holdover business and Alice in Wonderland – 3/4 of 2011 did better than 2010 by almost 2% with tickets sold almost even.

If you look at what sold in 2011, it was all the stuff that teen boys love… same as it ever was.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Beware those who claim to know exactly what any given stat means… or you might end up owning the Brooklyn Bridge… and believing that theatrical is in serious decline.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “Ticket Prices… Tickets Sold… Slumpy The Whale”

  1. Krazy Eyes says:

    You can go on about the finer details of ticket statistics but when it costs a family of three $50 to catch a movie and get some snacks (as it did for my family just last week) it’s going to drive people away. And don’t even get me started on how the whole theater-going experience has degraded.

    I used to see a good 20-25 films a year in the theater. Now you’re lucky if you can get me into one twice a year.

  2. Desslar says:

    Although $50 is a significant amount, it doesn’t seem exorbitant for a fun night out with the family.

  3. matt says:

    I read on another site-that-will-not-be-named that Tom Rothman pushed for the production of Chronicle to attract the tween audience that had not been going to the movies. It did seem to me like that audience was missing from moviegoing in the past few months. Anyone else have thoughts?

  4. Bennett says:

    Funny When I saw Chronicle there wasn’t anyone there under 20. I saw it based on the glowing reviews. I liked it, but wished that the third act had been expanded.

    Unless I missed it, but where was all the advertising for it. I saw the trailer online, but I missed seeing any television/print ads or the stars doing any promotion. Based on how good the film is, I think that they may be leaving some money on the table.

  5. LexG says:

    Way back when, CHRONICLE would’ve been an R. Like CARRIE or CHRISTINE were. I liked the movie, but especially in the last third, it felt like it was pulling punches.

  6. David Poland says:

    I would say that whoever claimed that Chronicle had anything to do with trying to get someone who wasn’t going to the movies to the movies is full of shit.

    It is a movie for teen and 20something boys. Nothing new.

    And krazyeyes… it is not new news that people over 30 – aka with weighty jobs and/or families – don’t go to the movies nearly as much as the 20somethings, especially the single ones. Nothing new there.

  7. cadavra says:

    But people who are over 50–whose kids are grown and out of the house, and who have a reasonable amount of spare time and discretionary spending capital–are still being underserved.

  8. David Poland says:

    People over 60, yeah.

    But there is plenty of product out there. There needs to be some exhibitors who are willing to change the rules to create more options for those audiences.

    Imagine a new-ish theater with 4 screens that have 12 movies available in the course of a weekend… at least half of which are more than 3 weeks old.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon