And the data from 2009 says...

Here's a great chart published in the Wall Street Journal today about how Americans spent money on movies in 2008 and 2009:



A key passage from the related article, by Sarah McBride:

For studios, which count on income from home entertainment to underwrite growing production costs, the trend represents a giant headache. In the early 2000s, studios began counting on the cash bonanza generated by consumers' building up libraries of DVDs. Now, they will have to alter budgets to reflect the shrinking DVD income stream.

Hollywood is already offering more ways for consumers to watch movies at home while bolstering studio coffers, including digital delivery, but households aren't embracing them quickly enough to make up for eroding DVD sales.

While Blu-ray disc sales are growing at a rapid rate, they too represent just a fraction of DVD sales. ...Instead, consumers are flocking to rentals, which represent considerably smaller profit for the studios, especially given the proliferation of $1-a-night rentals from kiosk operators such as Coinstar Inc.'s Redbox.

2009 was an amazing year for theatrical revenues -- perhaps a high water mark, thanks to the recession (movies offer an affordable night out) and an unusually strong and diverse release slate?

It seems clear from these trends that, for today, the bulk of revenues will still be from theatrical releases (if you can promote them and get butts in seats) and DVD sales and rentals. But indies need to have a smart strategy for digital, since that market is poised to grow -- and indies will be more flexible than the studios about pricing, free samples, and release windows, which could give them an edge. (Here's a New York Times story from this morning about how the studios are struggling to make their DRM-wrapped movie files more portable and flexible... without dropping the DRM, of course.)

What do you think 2009's revenue trends mean for indies?

Movies: A Bright Spot Amidst the Gloom

Chatting with the manager of one of my local theaters, the Showcase Cinemas in Revere, I asked him how business had been -- given the general economic malaise we seem to be mired in.

I was there on a slow Wednesday night, so it was hard to tell how things were going.

But Ken told me that he was astonished at how busy they've been. He said there have regularly been weekend nights lately that felt to him like mid-summer.

Then, a few days later, the New York Times published this piece, noting that ticket sales and attendance are up by 16-17 percent so far this year.

Interesting snippet:

In 1982, theater attendance jumped 10.1 percent to about 1.18 billion (the top seller was “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial”) as unemployment rose sharply past 10 percent. Then admissions fell nearly 12 percent, an unusually sharp drop, in 1985 (the “Back to the Future” year), as the economy picked up — suggesting that theater owners have sometimes found fortunes in times of distress, and distress in good times.

MovieMobz: Audiences Choose What They Want to See

I love this idea: let audiences pick what plays at their local theater.

From John Hopewell's piece in Variety:

...MovieMobz goes a social step further.

Its website allows filmgoers from the MovieMobz.com film club, to "mobilize" by choosing films, both classics and new releases, and click on a "I Want to See It" button.

Once enough viewers vote on a film, it emails members with screening details.

So far, MovieMobz has attracted 4,000 members and staged 20 film sessions, MovieMobz CEO Fabio Lima says.

About 2.5 people attend for every member who's voted.

"People bring their friends. Newspapers highlight sessions. Our entry prices are always lower than the half-price tickets students get," Lima says.

Why doesn't someone in the US give this a shot?

One interesting twist on the idea would be to let voters put their money where their mouth is: what if a voter agrees to give the theater her credit card number when she votes... and if the movie that she votes for eventually plays, her credit card is charged $5, and she has essentially bought an advance discount ticket. That seems like a good way to encourage people to show up to the theater ... not just to vote online. It's not too unlike the way Priceline gets you to guarantee that you'll pay for a hotel room you've bid on.

But maybe, as Lima suggests, you don't need to motivate people to show up....

Will Movie-Goers Pay $35 a Ticket?

The LA Times covers Village Roadshow, which is opening three ultra-luxe theaters in Southern California in 2009. Think the ArcLight's swank? It's a grindhouse compared to this, baby.

Josh Friedman writes:

The Gold Class experience starts with online seating selection, valet parking and a concierge desk at check-in.

Auditoriums will be the regular size but hold 30 to 40 table-side seats each, as opposed to 150 to 200 seats with drink holders at a typical multiplex, said Rob Goldberg, chief operating officer of Village Roadshow's Burbank-based Gold Class Cinemas division.

With the extra room, black-uniformed, "stealth-like" servers will be able to whisk menu choices such as lobster spring rolls, duck tacos, Wagyu beef burgers and creme brulee to customers' tables without obscuring the movie, he said, all at the call of a button. The theaters will offer seasonal menus with more than 100 wine selections, plus signature cocktails.

Two other Gold Class locations, in Illinois and the Seattle area, will open later this year.

Here's the site for their Australian locations, and here's a Variety story from earlier this year.

Clearly, they're not targeting teens who might see a movie a week during the summer... but adults for whom movie night might happen every other month.

Innovation in the exhibition business? I'm all for it!

Russ Wintner on Cinemas of the Future

Here at Silverdocs, I had a chat yesterday with distribution consultant Peter Broderick about why the theatrical experience has been so slow to evolve... why more theaters don't let their communities choose the movies that play there, create more comfortable environments, offer better food, etc.

Back at the hotel, Russell Wintner e-mailed me to point me to an article he has written on just that topic -- mapping out the future of the theater. The piece is worth a read, as Wintner is one of the pioneers who kick-started the digital cinema revolution (and he grew up in a family that owned movie theaters.)

A snippet:

Other technology under development will make the movie going experience even more immersive and dynamic. Two approaching technologies appear to come right from the pages of "Stranger than Science." Designs for laser light projectors were presented at the annual electronics conference NAB this past April. Laser-driven projectors offer more light, a wider range of color, and a switching capability that will allow for even better fidelity on the screen with frame rates higher than both traditional and home theaters. Quite possibly, laser projection will allow for 3D without glasses because the easily focused and directed light beams can be alternatively aimed at different parts of a screen designed to reflect into either the right or left eye but not both. Active display technologies, which enable images to emanate from a cloth-like material hung on walls or from ceilings, are a new technology that will remove the need for a projection booth. They should do for theater architects what digital has done for media. Buildings will be able to take on all sorts of shapes and configurations to better accommodate content and audiences. Theaters in the round, concert theaters with a mosh pit, and gaming salons where players share a common third-person point of view battling each other, or even better, a shared first-person point of view fighting aliens controlled by a computer, will all be possible.

The thing Wintner doesn't address -- but which is key -- is why most theater owners have been so passive about evolving their business and experimenting. Attend a ShoWest conference, and you will find that exhibitors are about the most unimaginative, status-quo-oriented businesspeople in America, simply waiting for the studios to give them hit movies that will draw big crowds.

Even Mark Cuban, who owns Landmark Theatres, has been *talking* a good game about radical theatrical innovations over the last three years but not really doing much.

Video Q&A: Cinema Owner Mark Stern on Innovation

When I was in Seattle earlier this month, I had a chance to visit Big Picture -- a new cinema concept I'd been eager to see ever since I talked with co-founder Mark Stern for this Hollywood Reporter piece.

Big Picture is a really interesting new direction in theatrical exhibition: an intimate venue where you can throw parties and corporate events, or simply buy a ticket to see a movie in a hip, comfortable environment. (Mark claims Big Picture in Redmond was the first theater to install Tempurpedic seats.)

Here's a video "notebook" of my visit to Big Picture in Redmond Town Center (not far from Microsoft's headquarters), and my conversation with Mark. We talk about the origins of the idea, how he competes with the chains, his early belief in digital cinema, his philosophy on service and design, his plans to expand to either Santa Monica or the San Francisco area, and some of the private events that have been held at Big Picture (including one with live music by Dave Matthews.) Running time: 17 minutes.

Can the movie theater be a multi-purpose space?

This weekend, National Amusements is using one of its LA theaters to host a videogame tournament, according to this Reuters piece.

One challenge for theaters that want to also host business meetings, gaming tournaments, and simulcast live events is that their auditoriums are designed for one purpose -- watching movies in the dark, while reclining in a semi-comfy seat. I suspect if theaters really want to be multi-purpose spaces, they'll need to be reconfigurable, with different seating arrangements, accessories, atmospherics, and chairs that aren't bolted to the floor.

You?