Ok... so, to give the above question some context...
I work security at a local family theme park. That's Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park, if you're anywhere near the area. Anyway, we have a rather strict policy on outside food. That is, you can't bring any in. This is posted at the ticket booths, on the walls of the entrance plaza, and is repeatedly affirmed by any staff personnel you happen to ask.
But the guests just don't get it. They don't understand why they can't bring food in; they don't even really care. All they want to do is to come in with their own disgustingly large portions of food and stuff their faces. Who cares if a good deal of our revenue is derived from park-based food sales? We certainly don't get that much from admissions, as regular tickets are essentially season passes.
So instead of coming up to us and admitting that they are in the wrong, they will do anything, say anything, to get their food into our park. You'd think that half the world's population has "special dietary needs" that consists of a diet of highly-processed and commercialized foodstuffs. What do you mean we can't bring in our McDonald's? Our kids won't eat anything else!
Really, though. There's no way that this many people can be restricted to "special diets".
But what really irks me is that this is showing me that a good 90% of the population consists of individuals who will lie to your face without a moment's notice. That really disturbs me.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I've always felt that, as far as following rules, people fall into three categories: 1) Those who obey all rules, because they believe in rules, and, if they disagree, will go through the system to get something changed. 2) Those who look at the supposed purpose of the rule, and if they agree with the (perceived) purpose, will comply, but if not, will ignore or work around the rule. these people will obey rules that seem based on morals (i.e., behaving well towards individuals) but often ignore rules based on behaving well towards entities like government, businesses, or any organization they see as being able to absorb a little inconvenience. 3) Those who object to the concept of rules, and rebel against anything systematic.
I think most people fall into the second category, and I think people coming into the park think, "This is a faceless bureaucratic rule designed to sap more money out of me. The rule is not based on kindness towards others or anything else that makes me feel bad, so I have no obligation to obey it."
I don't think these people come up with an elaborate plan to avoid the rule, but they assume that trying to get around it should be fine, and they lie when confronted because they didn't actually expect to be confronted. You aren't a faceless entity (I assume), you're a person, so they thought you'd be on their side, and ignore any food you saw them bringing in. By not ignoring it, you become not a person anymore. You're one of "them" the people with rules, so you can be ignored, lied to, or treated rudely.
Honestly, it reminds me of an unspoken agreement in my high school. Officially, students weren't allowed any food, ever anywhere but the cafeteria. Most teachers didn't care if you ate in class as long as you weren't messy, so the unspoken compromise was: so long as you pretend to be hiding your food from the teacher, they will pretend not to see you chewing, and you won't get in trouble--two individuals tacitly agreeing to undermine rules put in place by a faceless entity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I may point out that the people that you *catch* may consist of 90% liars. The people that you *don't* catch may very well belong to a different distribution
Also, you'll find the same behavior at movie theatres.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I follow the spirit of a lawful society, if not the letter of a litigious one. Or something. I jaywalk, trespass, set off illegal fireworks, drink out of open containers in cars, tag public property with stickers, sneak into private pools for residential divisions and bring my friends, drink absinthe with thujone, baldly walk into movie theaters without paying, speed, make illegal u-turns, aid and abet pot smokers, and probably a host of other things.
But at the same time, I follow a sort of a 'don't lie, cheat, or steal' rule and it has made my life really confusing because people are astoundingly reliant on little white lies. And I can't pirate games.
But seriously, about the part where people are reliant on lies? My god. When I forced myself to quit all lies I found out how dependent people usually are on harmless telling-people-what-they-want-to-hear lies to keep things comfortable, like in situations where you're just fudging a response, like saying 'no, no, I don't mind' when you really do. I have had to use very specific phrases like 'I don't feel like commenting on that.'
90% of people being liars is an impossibly conservative estimate. Very very few people never actually lie.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I definitely fall into Hank's category 2. My local movie theatre bans outside food yet I "smuggle" food in nearly every time I go. They charge outrageous prices for popcorn and drinks and I see no reason to let myself get raped for cash just because I want a little snack.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Movie theaters are in a difficult spot, because they don't make any substantive amount of money from ticket sales; the tickets are where the movie studios make their money. The theater's income is from the concession stand. It's a really unusual business, because one area of operation, snack sales, has to generate enough money to pay for several other aspects of the operation, which generate no income.
I think most people understand that this is the case.
But it really is pretty rotten the way some people -- not most -- but some -- will behave when it comes to this issue.
One particular instance springs to mind, when I was working in a movie theater as a manager, and a foursome arrived carrying Wendy's sacks and drinking frosties. I very politely told the guy who handed me the ticket, "I'm sorry sir, but we don't allow outside food and drink. You're welcome to finish your food in the lobby if you would like."
"What am I supposed to do with all this food?"
"Well, you could finish it before you go in, or leave it in your car."
"I just bought this, now you're going to make me late for the movie?"
"I don't wish to make you late, but you just can't bring in outside food, I'm sorry."
So they go back into the lobby and talk for a few minutes, after which the women both come past to go to the restroom. The men go over and hand the food across the poster cases, which the women hide in their purses. Then they go into the auditorium with the hidden food. A few minutes later the men come by.
One of them is still drinking his frosty. He walks by me, gives me a shoulder-bump, and ignores me as I say, "Sir? Sir...?"
It's baffling to me why he thought I wouldn't just go in and kick him out. Perhaps he thought he had sufficiently intimidated me. So of course I have someone else cover the podium, go into the theater, where the four are sitting there just munching away on their hamburgers and shakes, oblivious to my presence...
"Will the four of you please come with me?"
The shoulder-bump guy goes, "No. I'll go with you. These guys aren't going anywhere. Your beef is with me, not with them." It looks as though he wants to fight me.
"I'm afraid I need everyone," I say, frowning.
I bring them all out to the lobby.
I say, "Well, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
The women start going, "What? Just because we brought in our food? This is ridiculous."
"I think I gave fair warning," I say.
"What kind of mickey mouse place is this?"
"I think it's a pretty good place. We just don't allow outside food and drink."
I can't imagine the degree of self-justification that goes on with some people. No doubt they left thinking they were the heroes in some story, and I had wronged them horribly, that I was some kind of rule-clinging bureacrat....
Why don't people, if they don't want to pay the high price of snacks in movie theaters, just eat before they go to the movies?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:My local movie theatre bans outside food yet I "smuggle" food in nearly every time I go. They charge outrageous prices for popcorn and drinks and I see no reason to let myself get raped for cash just because I want a little snack.
They have to charge those prices. They're not gouging you; the whole operation is dependant upon snack sales. Snack sales don't just pay for the guy selling the snacks, they also pay for the people selling tickets, the people cleaning theaters, the projectionists, the power bill, equipment repairs, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Well, it's a matter of feeling obligated and being obligated, or neither. As far as I can tell, the situation is neither in this case, since the majority of people ignore the rule. I define being obligated as general social pressure.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
While I'm not advocating noncompliance, I think the rules about snacks in movie theaters and theme parks are just plain mercantilism. They offer junky, synthetic "food" and declare a monopoly. I've never eaten in a theater for years. Their formula is to stuff the halls with popcorn with a special mixture I like to call "I Can't Believe People Think That's Butter!" that smells overwhelmingly tempting, but tastes like a soggy wadded up Kleenex. Not to mention it costs a fortune for anything on the concession stands.
My father told me that when he was growing up movie theaters had the best popcorn anywhere. See, I'd be willing to start eating in theaters again if they offered something that at least tastes good. It's hard enough to swallow the fact that their ticket prices are going the way of gasoline.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Theater food and drink rules are also frustrating for those of us who don't have cars (to stash stuff in) and like to chain errands. I can't go to the grocery store before seeing a movie, because they're worried I'll eat my loaf of bread and bag of apples and whatnot. Likewise going to dinner first and taking home leftovers is tricky unless I can fit them in my purse or tuck them under my coat.
The end result is I don't see movies often. If theaters really make all their money off concession sales, though, I guess that's okay with them, since I don't like eating anything while I'm watching movies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: While I'm not advocating noncompliance, I think the rules about snacks in movie theaters and theme parks are just plain mercantilism.
No, actually, they are plain capitalism. Confucius he say, you no like, you no have to buy. Mercantilism is when you have to buy.
Socialism, on the other hand, is what you get when movie theaters are subsidised, as in Norway. Which leads to having fewer theaters, roughly the same ticket prices as here, and you can bring in whatever outside food you like. And, of course, pay more in taxes. Pay your money and take your choice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As far as I'm concerned, without a notice visible before I buy the tickets - which is not present at any of the theaters I go to regularly - adding on a "no outside food" rider after the tickets are bought is bait and switch.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: All they want to do is to come in with their own disgustingly large portions of food and stuff their faces. Who cares if a good deal of our revenue is derived from park-based food sales?
Perhaps if you were to reduce your prices, compliance would improve? As it stands, I imagine people mainly sneak food into your park for the same reason that they sneak food into theaters: it's ridiculously overpriced, lacking in variety, and probably of fairly low quality. The perception of value is low enough that they don't feel any degree of loyalty to your -- let's face it -- arbitrary and self-serving restrictions.
IMO, dramatically inflating the margins of one optional service in order to cover the losses of your primary service is just asking for trouble, whether you're a theater or a theme park or an oil change place.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It looks like the park is the one who is lying.
The cost of admission does not cover the expense of the admission. So, they lie about the cost of admission and then go to great artificial lengths to pretend that it is against some principle for people to bring their own food.
Raise the cost of admission and let current practice which is clearly working for your customers continue. Have food on hand for those who don't want to bother.
That would be better for a park than for a movie theatre, because people can live without getting food for themselves during the course of a movie. But for someone to bring the family all day to an amusement park and then not allow them bring food? That isn't the difference of ten bucks - considering the cost of a single meal and then multiply that by two and then by six, it would have been the difference of over a hundred dollars for my family. That is too much money for park owners to get mad about people not wanting to spend it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I never buy food at the movie theatre. Nor do I bring it in. I willingly pay $20 a ticket at a film festival where people are there to see the movie, not to munch on popcorn.
I agree with the people who said that your park should raise their prices to a level where you're not relying on people to buy food to get enough revenue. That doesn't mean that you have to allow people to bring in food, but it means that people are paying for what they're getting, and then paying more reasonable prices for food. People are smuggling in food because the food is so expensive. Knock a dollar off all the food prices and add a dollar fifty to the tickets and you'll probably see slightly fewer people smuggling in food.
Often park food is limited, and I know you're saying that people are smuggling in MacDonalds, but often park food is like bad sandwiches and hot dogs. I'd be more willing to buy food if the food was more varied and edible.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Movie theater concessions fall into a vicious cycle. Less people go to the movies these days, so less people buy concessions, so they raise prices. More people get disgusted at the high prices, so less go to the movies, they raise the concession prices higher...
It doesn't help that many of major movie theater chains I've gone to use popcorn that isn't anywhere near as good as the kind I can pop at home. Add in the pee-smelling, upset-stomach inducing artificial butter and I usually just have lunch or supper before going to the movie.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
We went to a local water park yesterday. It cost over $150 to get my family in. This isn't Disney World, it's just the local Adventure Landing. And it is a lot of fun, but the cost is the reason we don't go to this park even once a year.
The food prices were so high it would've cost us approximately $48 just for lunch. We chose not to pay that much, so they got $0 from us for lunch. If the prices had been more reasonable, we probably would've just stayed there for lunch, and they would've gotten $30 more from us. Their loss. And our loss too, because we had to leave when we got hungry instead of staying to enjoy the park longer.
I completely understand the desire to sneak food in when you feel like if you follow the rules, you're being cheated either way - either you have to leave to eat, so you're cheated out of part of the fun you paid for, or you're cheated out of an exorbitant amount of money for mediocre food. It's like, either they cheat me, or I'll cheat them. Which do you think most people would choose? I tend to follow the rules, and it grates on my nerves when people just blatantly flaunt them, but I certainly understand why.
I agree with those who said "charge what you need to for tickets, and then charge what you need to for food."
[ July 27, 2008, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: JennaDean ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: IMO, dramatically inflating the margins of one optional service in order to cover the losses of your primary service is just asking for trouble, whether you're a theater or a theme park or an oil change place.
Agreed.
And speaking as someone who actually does have "special dietary needs", I will bring food in with me. Otherwise, we don't get a lunch, and when we're talking all day at a park, that's not ok.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now I'm imagining the haunted house ride at Kosherland, where riders are treated to a scene of stomach-churning horror as a piece of roast beef is slowly wrapped around a cheesestick.... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Don't worry, honey, it's not real. The meat is really soy!"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Considering how muc movie theatres and parks gouge us out of our money through your horribly overpriced and under served food do you honestly expect anything else!? I routinely smuggle Costco wholesaler sized packages of junk into theatres rather then buy something costing ten times more for 10 times less.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Rivka, what is that from?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
First, I'll freely admit that I am one who often flouts business models. In other words, if a theatre charges an unreasonable amount of money for food, I'll bring my own food. If an inkjet company charges too much for ink, I'll get my own ink. If a North American company "locks" my GSM phones and wants to charge ludicrous amounts of money for international calls, I'll let China Mobile install a new SIM card and "unlock" the phone. If in the unfortunate circumstance that I am on a shuttle bus that is subsidized by ads for a hotel, or a bus tour that is subsidized by an unannounced stop at a "jade factory", I'll make sure to buy nothing. If I find myself at a souvenir stand whose business model is to rip off the rich foreigner while giving the real price to natives, I'll freely (attempt to) bargain down to the real price with no remorse.
I'm not making a moral argument here, I'm just noting that this is how I'll behave. I'll attempt to avoid hurting anyone's feelings by avoiding confrontations and avoiding lying, although it will be near-impossible in the last two cases.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Rivka, what is that from?
An imaginary mother on Tom's imaginary ride.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I don't bring food into movie theaters, nor do I buy food at movie theaters, because I can't hear the movie while I'm chewing. I don't really understand how other people feel they can fully enjoy a movie while they're crunching popcorn (or crinkling candy wrappers). I understand that movie theaters don't make a profit from ticket prices and that if they didn't sell refreshments they wouldn't stay in business -- and I'd be willing to buy their overpriced food if only they sold anything that was (a) healthy and (b) quiet.
I recently went to an amusement park and brought in some grapes and carrots to munch on, correctly assuming that the amusement park's concessions stands would be devoid of fruits and vegetables of any kind.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But the guests just don't get it. They don't understand why they can't bring food in; they don't even really care.
In my experience, most Americans have no compunction to follow rules they don't understand or consider to be unfair. You are right, they don't understand. They have no idea about the finances of a theme park. They have no idea what it cost to build and maintain and operate rides.
What they do know, is the $41.99 a piece is a lot of money for most families. Since they
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
My mom's rule of thumb was always to assume that food would cost as much as the ticket to the park. I guess since we'd anticipated the extra cost ahead of time, it never bothered us much.
As for food, my last vacation was to the Lowrey Park Zoo where I had a very nice salad and yogurt for lunch. We did mess up by not having enough cash for the drink machines scattered around the back of the zoo, though. Last time we went to Disney, I seem to recall having a veggie burger and something else reasonably healthy. Epcot's bring up memories of a giant baked potato. Wild Adventures I'm associating with less healthy fare, but I don't know if that was all that was available or just what I happened to be in the mood for.
Maybe it's just that Disney is awesome, but I don't get the fuss over park food.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
DisneyWorld park food was pretty good, of course, the last time I was there was 17 years ago. Hard Rock Park in Myrtle Beach has surprisingly good food, fresh-cooked, high-quality. In general, though, the food thing is a little annoying. I never eat anything at the movies, but it's a big pain to have to at least go all the way back to your car to eat at amusement parks, unless you want the usual overcooked/processed stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: First, I'll freely admit that I am one who often flouts business models. If in the unfortunate circumstance that I am on a shuttle bus that is subsidized by ads for a hotel, or a bus tour that is subsidized by an unannounced stop at a "jade factory", I'll make sure to buy nothing. If I find myself at a souvenir stand whose business model is to rip off the rich foreigner while giving the real price to natives, I'll freely (attempt to) bargain down to the real price with no remorse.
I'm not making a moral argument here, I'm just noting that this is how I'll behave. I'll attempt to avoid hurting anyone's feelings by avoiding confrontations and avoiding lying, although it will be near-impossible in the last two cases.
Come now Mucus. You and I both know that prices at most knick knack shops in China are intentionally inflated, not so that merchants can rip off foreigners, though that is a bonus, but because nothing should ever be purchased without a friendly or even sometimes heated debate about the fair price. Everyone in China knows this, so it's not really lying.
I remember once bargaining for a friend who wanted to buy a necklace for his girlfriend but he did not have the Chinese vocabulary to effectively bargain for what he was willing to pay. After a pretty tough negotiation the shop keeper agreed to the price and my friend promptly said he was no longer interested in the necklace. I felt exceedingly embarrassed to have to turn to her and tell her that I was backing out of our exchange. That to me is far worse than lying about a price.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Maybe it's just that Disney is awesome, but I don't get the fuss over park food.
Disney is pretty awesome when it comes to food.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: What they do know, is the $41.99 (price from the website) a piece is a lot of money for most families. Since they
I guess I should finish that thought.
Since they know nothing about real expense of running an amusement park (or a movie theater), they feel like they are being gauged for the entrance fee and then gauged again for food once they get inside. Since they think your rules are designed to cheat them, they don't feel like its dishonest to break your rules.
Try putting up a large sign at the entrance that explains honestly what the park is doing. Something like
{quote] We are able to offer you a season pass for the same price as one day entrance because our rides and other attractions are partially subsidized by food sales inside the park. You are welcome to enjoy all our parks attraction even if you choose not to eat inside the park, but we ask that you follow our rule and not bring food purchased elsewhere into the park. If you don't, you will be asked to leave the park. Thank you for helping us continue to provide affordable family entertainment.[/quote]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except they are lying.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
When I go to the movies I just buy a drink. Popcorn for $6 is way to expensive (gotta have money to buy games.) Popcorn is too loud, I sometimes sneak in some chocolate If you suck on it it doesn't make a sound.
When going to a theme park, I completely forget the money in my pocket is all I have, I play every game at least once. I am completely fooled by the simple looking games last time I was at six flags I whent there with $120 and I left with a superman cape and an empty pocket Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Auto repair has a similar built-in lie. It's called "flat rate pricing."
That is, there is a rate, given in hours, as to how much a particular service costs. So your brake job will take 1.5 hours, the 30K service will take 2.7 hours, replacing the bad bearing in your left rear wheel will take .6 hours. It's 4:30 now, can you come pick up your car at 6:00 PM?
The "flat rate" comes from a book, and there are very few mechanics that use it as an estimation tool, which was how it was originally intended. The flip side of flat rate is that if you quote the customer a 1.2 hour job, and it takes all day, the mechanic only gets paid 1.2 hours. When I was a mechanic, I was told that to be a "class A" mechanic, I was expected to turn in 60 flat rate hours in a 40 hour week. That's just the way it was.
And similar to what some here are arguing, I think the lie can be removed without really changing the mechanism. Just tell the customer "the labor will be $620," instead of quoting them the time to do the job.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It goes without saying, I'm sure -- but sneaking in food to movie theaters has basically the same effect as shoplifting; the business has to charge everyone else more to offset the cost of your dishonesty.
I always get aggravated when this subject comes up, because people just flat-out, with no evidence to the contrary, simply refuse to believe the truth. Or they choose to deny it so they can continue to keep up the self-justification.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, without a notice visible before I buy the tickets - which is not present at any of the theaters I go to regularly - adding on a "no outside food" rider after the tickets are bought is bait and switch.
I would be willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that if you looked for such a sign, you would see one. I go to theaters at least twice a week, and in the city where I live, (which is Salt Lake, for the record) every movie theater I attend (except for the art-houses, which are part of a non-profit group) has signs posted at the box office window, at the ticket podium, and they often have signs on the glass of the doors as well. Yet people always bring in outside food and drink, and act absolutely mystified when they are told it is not allowed. The signs are there. Most people don't notice them, as they are not looking for them -- but they are almost certainly there.
quote:IMO, dramatically inflating the margins of one optional service in order to cover the losses of your primary service is just asking for trouble, whether you're a theater or a theme park or an oil change place.
In general I would agree that it would be bad practice for most businesses, but movie theaters have no other option; that is the business model. There is not an alternative model.
It didn't have to end up this way -- I can imagine a thousand different ways for theaters and studios to make money -- but this is the way it ended up. The studios make the money from ticket sales. It would be neat to see them give the theater a higher percentage of ticket income -- say 40% -- so the theaters could offset their other costs. But the studios would never do that. Where would they make up the difference?
They have movie theaters in a corner, because as more and more viable alternative methods of delivery become available, the studios need the theaters less and less. So the movie theaters have no bargaining chip to force a change.
Which, of course, is why stereoscopic 3D will be the absolute savior of the movie theater as a for-profit business...
But that's several years away from being the normal, mainstream method of releasing films.
I'm just saying: it's all very well and good to be wary, but one cannot deny the practical reality of the situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: It goes without saying, I'm sure -- but sneaking in food to movie theaters has basically the same effect as shoplifting; the business has to charge everyone else more to offset the cost of your dishonesty.
Right, because this is the same as theft.
I rarely bring food to theaters -- but I never buy anything there. So apparently those of us who simply choose not to buy food (but also don't bring any) are also cheating the theater? Give me a break.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I'm just saying: it's all very well and good to be wary, but one cannot deny the practical reality of the situation.
But one certainly can refuse to buy into it.
As I said, I don't buy food in theaters. In fact, I rarely watch movies in theaters, and this is actually one of the reasons why. Convenience and scheduling is a bigger issue, but this is a contributing factor.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I still feel that the rule is invalid due to the lack of social pressure, therefore there is no obligation to follow it. Just my humble opinion, of course.
By the way, on the topic of ridiculous prices, I went to the theatre and it cost 20 bucks a ticket! How is that possible? I haven't been to the movies in a long time, so I wonder if this has been going on for a while, is a new phenomenon, or is just in England?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Right, because this is the same as theft.
I rarely bring food to theaters -- but I never buy anything there. So apparently those of us who simply choose not to buy food (but also don't bring any) are also cheating the theater? Give me a break
*sigh*
I didn't say anything remotely like that. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Does it matter? Who can argue with a good old fashioned strawman!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. So please explain the difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the studios would never do that. Where would they make up the difference?
So movie theaters need to settle on a value-add that isn't obvious scalping. What can they offer filmgoers that's better than the filmgoers can get at home?
(One obvious but tongue-in-cheek answer: free childcare during the movie. *grin* )
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I absolutely never buy food at the theater. But then I don't have to worry about that, as the theater I go to allows outside food and drink. They also only charge $4.75 Mon-Thurs, so we go there exclusively now. It's a pretty nice theater in a pretty nice neighborhood (by no means as good as the really fancy pants theater one city over that has the stadium style seating and plush seats that costs three times as much) and we go there almost exclusively. We only go to the fancy pants theater for really big movies.
I don't really consider it dishonest. I'm sorry but, I have absolutely zero intention of buying the food at the theater, it just isn't going to happen, so I don't feel bad bringing in my own food. If they brought the prices down, I'd buy it. It seems like a vicious cycle where they raise the price, and people stop buying, so they have to raise the price even more to make up for the loss of revenue, but people continue to stop buying. If they lowered the price and raised the quality, a lot more people would buy.
Disneyworld I found last summer had a fantastic array of high and low quality food for customers. I really was quite amazed at both the price and the quality of the food there. I loved those little Mickey ear Dove bars.
I'll say more later, I have to go. I like this thread. The different reasonings and points of view are fascinating.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I still feel that the rule is invalid due to the lack of social pressure, therefore there is no obligation to follow it. Just my humble opinion, of course.
By the way, on the topic of ridiculous prices, I went to the theatre and it cost 20 bucks a ticket! How is that possible? I haven't been to the movies in a long time, so I wonder if this has been going on for a while, is a new phenomenon, or is just in England?
You didn't pay 20$, you paid 10 quid. People here get paid in pounds, and they pay in pounds. Not dollars. It's a mental shift that takes a while to make. Some things here aren't bad when you compare, like groceries. Most other things, like restaurant food, clothing, and movie tickets, cost about the same as we'd expect in North America, but the currency is pounds.
As to the main point of the thread, I almost never buy food at the theatre. Occasionally when I'm jonesing for popcorn and it's a special occasion I will, but that's about it. I almost always bring a bottle of tap water with me. I won't buy bottled water anywhere if I can avoid it, so why would I buy it at the theatre?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Come now Mucus. You and I both know that prices at most knick knack shops in China are intentionally inflated, not so that merchants can rip off foreigners, though that is a bonus, but because nothing should ever be purchased without a friendly or even sometimes heated debate about the fair price. Everyone in China knows this, so it's not really lying.
I respectfully submit that it is a question of terminology. In the end, the result is that people unfamiliar with a fair price for goods in the area will end up paying a lot more until they are familiar.
Again, not making a moral argument (in some cases one could almost argue that foreigners "should" pay more) but the main point was about subverting business models. In this case, the souvenir stand guy's standard of living and "business model" may very well depend on charging foreigners twice as much as locals, but I feel no particular urge to oblige. Same with theatres and their really.
As for lying, well, I think they are just white lies, but yes they are expected.
No, the guy is not offering you a "special price." No, you're not "really" leaving but you may as well try to get a lower price when they call you back. *shrug*
quote: That to me is far worse than lying about a price.
I admit that is my general principle when bargaining. Feel free to lie about your background, your budget, your intentions about how much you like it, but when you settle on a price, that should be it.
Edit to add: But sometimes, I also find it hard to judge other people that do otherwise.
It can be tough making moral calls with such a big income disparity, some pretty big pseudo-scams, and so forth. It is perhaps easier to make moral calls back here in North America.
[ July 27, 2008, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Ok. So please explain the difference.
It probably comes as no surprise that I feel no particular need to explain why my position is different than some other totally exaggerated position made up to put me on the defensive.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But the studios would never do that. Where would they make up the difference?
So movie theaters need to settle on a value-add that isn't obvious scalping. What can they offer filmgoers that's better than the filmgoers can get at home?
Yeah. I'd buy movie theater popcorn if it wasn't (for the most part) inferior to the popcorn I can make at home. Heck, most of it's inferior to the el-cheapo microwave popcorn I can get out of the vending machine at work.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* Fine. I didn't "make it up to put you on the defensive"; I honestly do not see the difference between the two situations, from the perspective of the theater's business model. Either way, you have people who are paying for a ticket and not one penny more.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
That's true.
But I never have proposed that the purpose of a movie theater is ONLY to sell snacks; the purpose of the theater is to show movies. That's what gets us in the door. It's all about movies, moreso than it is about snacks -- but unfortunately the theaters _must_ sell all the snacks they can, otherwise there's no money to continue selling movies.
Given that the purpose a movie theater is to show movies, it would be beyond preposterous to say that people who buy tickets but don't buy snacks -- who utilize the theater for its intended purpose -- aee hurting the theater.
However, when you sneak in outside food and drink, you are still eating a snack -- a snack that, had you bought it from the thearer, would have generated money; so you are utilizing the theater for a secondary intended profit-generating purpose, but you are not paying the theater to do so.
It is not exactly the same thing as shop-lifting. There are clear differences; it's probably closer to theft of services, though it's not exactly that, either. Ultimately, though, it *does* have a similar effect -- which is that the theater lost money it otherwise would have made.
Any way you slice it, I think that when you sneak outside food into a place that primarily makes its income from selling food, after they have been very clear and (Chances are) polite in asking you not to do it, you are being dishonest.
The effect is not identical to theft, because you are not taking away something that they physically owned, but it is similar, because your activity causes them not to gain revenue they otherwise might have.
This is obvious to me.
I'm sure others will see it differently.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
*ETA: TL, I didn't see your last post before I made this one.
I think the problem was in equating bringing in food with shoplifting. Here's the problem: Bringing in outside food isn't stealing from anyone. They've paid for the food and they've paid for permission to sit in the theater and watch the movie. It's not taking money or merchandise from the theater. It's just not giving them any more money than the cost of the ticket. And since no one is compelled to give them any more money than what the ticket costs, it's not by any stretch of the imagination "stealing".
In a movie theater, you can just choose not to eat for those 2-3 hours. It's more likely that people in an amusement park would buy the food if they can't bring in outside food, because they're there longer. But it's also more likely to make them feel trapped and cheated, and people who feel trapped and cheated are going to feel more justified in breaking the rules.
Imagine you're Joe Public. Happy Fun Park advertises that it costs $50 for admission. You budget your money and think, "Well, it's expensive, but if we brown-bag it, we might be able to afford to go." And then you get there and you're told you have to either spend more money to eat (and WAY more money than you would spend for lunch outside the park), or cut your visit short. Can you really not see that that's dishonest on the part of the park? And if that's the case, if the public feels cheated, they're not going to have any qualms about cheating back. In their minds, they're just refusing to allow the park to steal from them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In fairness to TL, rivka, he said the two things have the same effect, not necessarily that they were morally equivalent somehow.
For example, one guy steals a car from a car dealership while another guy who over the course of his life, as a savvy negotiator, ends up saving very large amounts of money by making excellent deals. The dealership has to make up the loss* in both cases, even though there is nothing remotely wrong with the latter and gobs of wrong with the former.
*Loss meaning that the business expects, starting out, to make a certain amount of money in a given day/month/transaction/customer, and if they do not, it could be considered a loss that must be accounted for elsewhere.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
What amazes me about certain people is how they will break rules thinking they're not hurting anyone. For example.
I work at a gas station/ice cream parlor, United Dairy Farmers, in my hometown. Some of you from the Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana will know what I'm talking about. There are certain rules we have set in place. The most often broken rules are as follows:
1. Pay for your gas. People think that by driving off with gas, they're just hurting the big oil companies. They're not. If a clerk on duty has someone drive off with gas too often, they could lose their job, and that, for some of the people I work with, is their ONLY source of income for whatever reason.
2. Don't smoke on the property, and turn off your engine when refueling. People seem to not understand that leaving your engine running while gassing up your car is a SERIOUS fire hazard. Same with smoke- just because you're in front of the store, and not at the pumps, doesn't mean there's no danger. the gas is stored in a gigantic... tank, for lack of a better word, UNDER the parking lot. It's not just AT the pumps.
3. Everyone, including children, must be wearing a shirt inside the store. Yes, I understand he's just a little boy. Yes, I understand it's summertime. But we can be fined thousands of dollars in health code violations if we allow people in our store without shirts on.
4. When a clerk tells you he/she is not authorized to do something, arguing will not change their minds. I do not have the code to allow me to sell prepaid phone cards. Yelling at me will not change that.
5. We cannot override the computer. Our recent sale was buy one dip of peach ice cream, get one dip free. They have to be IN THE SAME CUP/CONE. If you want two dips on two seperate cones, we have to charge you twice. That's jsut the way it is.
6. We CANNOT sell alcohol without an I.D. It must be US government issued, and it must have a birthdate, picture, and cannot be past its expiration date. Even if you look old enough, even if you're a little old man, we CANNOT sell you alcohol without an ID. Every time a clerk gets caught doing that, the store is fined $1000 and the clerk is arrested. 5 fines means we lose our license to sell alcohol. Same goes with tobacco- if you look under thirty, and don't have your ID, you're not getting the cigarettes. Even if you tell us the day you were born. We cannot do that.
A lot of times, people don't understand why we're "impeding their convenience, when it's a convenience store." (That's an actual quote from a customer today.) We're not doing this because we want to waste your time. Trust me, we have other things to do. but we have undercover officers, Quality Assurance personnel, all the time coming into our store and making sure we're following the rules. If you have a problem, take it up with corporate. Yelling at the poor sales clerk because the gas prices are higher today than they were yesterday isn't going to get them lowered, it's just going to make you angrier and the clerk's life hell.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would consider that completely different from the issue involving theatres.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The effect is not identical to theft, because you are not taking away something that they physically owned, but it is similar, because your activity causes them not to gain revenue they otherwise might have.
Except that not buying food has exactly the same effect as bringing in food. You can't read the mind of the person who brings in food and determine that if they had not brought in food, they would have bought food, because in many cases they wouldn't have. And bringing food definitely doesn't have the same effect as shoplifting, because the theater loses nothing.
Would a theater be better off if people don't come to the theater at all, or if they come and don't buy food?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
If movie theaters and theme parks make little or no money on admission, and concessions are their primary source of income, they how can they make the argument that it's good capitalistic practice to provide horrible product at outrageous prices? Especially if the said services provided were their main revenue.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:6. We CANNOT sell alcohol without an I.D. It must be US government issued, and it must have a birthdate, picture, and cannot be past its expiration date. Even if you look old enough, even if you're a little old man, we CANNOT sell you alcohol without an ID. Every time a clerk gets caught doing that, the store is fined $1000 and the clerk is arrested. 5 fines means we lose our license to sell alcohol....
I agree, this is off topic. But -
Is this true? I thought the law was that you couldn't sell to anyone under 21. Is it the law that you have to check ID for everyone, or is it company policy so there's no way the store can be fined for breaking the actual law of selling to underage customers? Is the store actually fined $1000 and the clerk arrested for selling alcohol to someone who's of age, just because they didn't check ID? That's news to me.
Or could it be that the store is fined and the clerk arrested when they sell to underage customers, so the company makes a policy to avoid ever having that happen?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
This is why I don't like these threads. Rather than give fair consideration to the position of the movie theater, everybody pretends their dishonesty is due to the bad practices of the theater, which is, I can tell you from working in movie theaters, flat out untrue.
It's disheartening.
I really would rather hear people say, "Yeah, we know it hurts the theater, but we don't care, we do it anyway; screw the theater. We don't want to pay high prices."
It's a far more truthful position to take.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Maybe it's a state law? It's not that way in California, I sometimes don't get carded when I buy beer where I usually do because they know me but. . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In fairness to TL, rivka, he said the two things have the same effect, not necessarily that they were morally equivalent somehow.
And they have the same effect as those who do not bring in food but do not buy any either.
quote:so you are utilizing the theater for a secondary intended profit-generating purpose, but you are not paying the theater to do so.
Here is where we disagree. I am not using the theater for a "secondary intended profit-generating purpose", unless you define that purpose in a way I have not agreed to. To quote Jenna:
quote:Bringing in outside food isn't stealing from anyone. They've paid for the food and they've paid for permission to sit in the theater and watch the movie. It's not taking money or merchandise from the theater. It's just not giving them any more money than the cost of the ticket. And since no one is compelled to give them any more money than what the ticket costs, it's not by any stretch of the imagination "stealing".
It is neither my fault nor my problem that the business' model is so severely flawed, and I resent you implying that it is.
Moreover, I think theaters (and amusement parks) that have such policies do themselves (as well as their customers) a disservice. Why make it a challenge or a game (and you know for some customers it will be?) Many people will choose to buy food at the location, just to not have to bring it with them. Meanwhile, by having these policies, you are making going there less attractive for many potential visitors, driving them to other locations (without these policies) or encouraging them to just stay home.
I believe the details of alcohol sales laws vary from state to state.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:It is neither my fault nor my problem that the business' model is so severely flawed, and I resent you implying that it is.
Okay. Again, I can't imagine where you're getting this. Any chance you could show me where I implied it was your fault that movie theaters make money from snack sales???
what on earth.... honestly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The effect is not identical to theft, because you are not taking away something that they physically owned, but it is similar, because your activity causes them not to gain revenue they otherwise might have.
Here's the rub for me.
It would seem your point hinges on lost revenue. But what about people who will absolutely not for any reason buy food from the theater? For them, bringing in food doesn't rob the theater of anything since they were never going to buy anything anyway.
I wish I could interview the GM at my local theater to see if their sales have gone up since they allowed outside food and drink and how their sales have been since they lowered the weekday price. I know that I personally go there a heck of a lot more often rather than waiting to Netflix it.
Personally I think charging one price at the door to lure you in and then dropping the boom with overpriced low quality food is fraud, well probably not fraud, but it's a form of deception. Backdooring fees into things always annoys me. I want the full price up front so I know what I'm really paying. A friend and I are trying to join a fitness center right now, and the place is new so they are waving the usual enrollment fee, and the monthly fee is $15. Except there's a $49 processing fee, and you have to pay firt and last month's dues, plus tax. So instead of getting in without and real fees, it's still $100 for the first month. I'm not super bothered by it, because montly fees and enrollment fees are a lot more at other places, but I HATE backdoor fees. I just wish they'd say "It's $100" instead of the spiel.
I think most people feel the same way. If the upcharged crappy food is really a cost of the park's operating budget, I think they should just up the admission price and then lower the cost of the food and for that matter, make it worth the price. Otherwise it's backdooring extra costs, which pisses people off, and they don't feel bad about skirting what they see as a fraud to begin with.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
If I implied it was your problem, I can't imagine how.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If the two options are:
quote:Originally posted by TL: give fair consideration [leaving aside whether I agree with that assessment] to the position of the movie theater
or
quote:Originally posted by TL: say, "Yeah, we know it hurts the theater, but we don't care, we do it anyway; screw the theater. We don't want to pay high prices."
how is it NOT my problem?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would be willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that if you looked for such a sign, you would see one. I go to theaters at least twice a week, and in the city where I live, (which is Salt Lake, for the record) every movie theater I attend (except for the art-houses, which are part of a non-profit group) has signs posted at the box office window, at the ticket podium, and they often have signs on the glass of the doors as well. Yet people always bring in outside food and drink, and act absolutely mystified when they are told it is not allowed. The signs are there. Most people don't notice them, as they are not looking for them -- but they are almost certainly there.
If the signs aren't noticeable before I pay for the ticket, they don't apply. And, quite simply, they are not anywhere I've noticed, even though I've looked, at the theaters I frequent.
quote:Rather than give fair consideration to the position of the movie theater, everybody pretends their dishonesty is due to the bad practices of the theater, which is, I can tell you from working in movie theaters, flat out untrue.
Wow - you write this and have the nerve to bitch about others not giving "fair consideration" to your (the theater's) position? That takes either serious balls or a serious blind spot.
To clarify:
1) Were I to say "I don't have food" I would be being dishonest. However, I've never once said this to a movie theater employee or agent. Therefore, your characterization of bringing food into a theater as dishonest is, at minimum, addressing a subset of outside food issues at movie theaters.
2) I've brought in food visibly many times to many theaters, including the ones I currently frequent.
3) The theaters I go to do NOT have a sign that I have noticed that is visible before I purchase tickets. At each of these theaters, there is a visible sign at the ticket taker position. This does not bind me to follow their policies.
4) I do buy food at theaters sometimes. However, there is no time when I bring in food that, were I not to do so, I would then buy food from them. Therefore, I am not "hurting" the theater.
I do not grant private businesses the right to make "rules" for me. I grant them the right to specify the terms by which they will do business with me - the same right I reserve for myself. That right involves notifying me in advance of what their terms are. Theaters, as best I can tell, purposely refuse to do this.
A private business owner always has the right to ask me to leave. If, in doing so, they make it impossible to receive a service I have already paid for, they will either refund my money or waste far more time in dealing with my demands.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
There are no backdoor fees. You pay for a ticket. The price is clear. You can choose to purcahse it or not. If you do so, you will gain admittance to the movie. You pay for snacks. The prices are clearly posted. You don't have to have snacks. There is no fraud. There is no bait and switch. Is there anyone who doesn't know movie theater food is expensive? Is there anyone who doesn't know why? There is zero trickery involved. There are no secrets; the way movie theaters operate is up-front and above-board. There is no element of dishonesty in the fact that they have to charge high prices.
Just because you don't want to pay what they charge does not make it fraud. Those are ridiculous charges. It seems to be like I said... nobody fairly considers the reality of the situation the theaters are in, they just invent bad faith to justify doing what they want.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Personally I think charging one price at the door to lure you in and then dropping the boom with overpriced low quality food is fraud, well probably not fraud, but it's a form of deception.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. People feel like they're the ones being cheated by the theater or park, not like they're the ones cheating. If the park is not honest about what it costs to go there, people DON'T automatically know that they survive based on food sales. They're going to feel like the park is trying to cheat them out of more than the food is worth, so some will go to great lengths to avoid being cheated.
And if I choose not to eat while at your park, why should Customer X (who buys food there) have to pay for part of my admission with his food bill? That's dishonesty on the part of the park.
I don't cheat, for the record; we just don't eat there. But I really have no sympathy for the parks with their underhanded schemes for tricking their customers.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
rivka, I'm sorry, I just don't understand your point, there. I can't identify how it isn't your problem; I'm not understanding the basic foundation. How is it your problem, and how have I implied that it is your problem?
Dagonee, although I do have serious balls, I don't think I wrote anything requiring serious balls. Lying is not the only form of dishonesty, and wasn't the particular one to which I was referring. To clarify, I am not saying that anyone who takes outside food into a theater is dishonest; some theaters allow it, so clearly in some situations it is allowable, and there is no element of dishonesty. However, if an employee of the theater asked you not to bring it in, and you did so anyway, or if you knew they didn't allow it and you snuck it inside your purse specifically to circumvent their rules, I do consider that to be dishonesty. As for a private business setting rules, let us away with the semantics.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Just because you don't want to pay what they charge does not make it fraud. Those are ridiculous charges.
If you are in an amusement park all day long, and you are not allowed to eat anything but what you can buy in the park, for which you are charged more than the food is worth ... yes, that's deception. The deception comes in the form of saying that it only costs X to come to our park, when really it costs Y; and to make up the difference between X and Y, we're going to overcharge you for food; and you have no choice but to eat our food or leave early and not get what you paid for in the first place (a Full Day of Fun at the park).
In other words, it costs $65 to let you in, but we'll tell you it only costs $50 and then force you to pay $15 for fast food to make up the difference. This is deception.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Jenna, I was referring, specifically, to movie theaters, and not amusement parks. I don't know enough about how amusement parks operate to disagree or agree with you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Is there anyone who doesn't know why?
I'll bet there are many people who don't. And if theaters couldn't use this method to earn money, they WOULD do something about the way the money earned from ticket sales is handled -- they would have no other option, from what you've said. Which means that to some degree the prices are because they have a captive audience, and your "but pity the poor theater owners!" is rather disingenuous. They are perpetuating the system.
You using (or trying to use) guilt or claims of dishonesty (and like Dags, I disagree with that, and don't think it's mere semantics) are also perpetuating the system. And trying to make the theater's problem (business model that means they won't stay open unless they make X bucks on the average customer in snacks) mine, simply by asking me to buy into said guilt.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Jenna, I was referring, specifically, to movie theaters, and not amusement parks.
Oh. I was referring to the OP.
You did say about movie theaters, though, "I think most people understand that this is the case." I simply don't think this is true. I personally never thought for one second about a movie theater's "business model" or where they make their profits. I just knew they were charging ridiculous prices for food, on top of costing an awful lot just to get in, so I refused to buy it.
I do agree that IF there are signs posted about outside food when you make your purchase, and you try to sneak food in anyway, and you are caught and then lie about it, then yes, you're dishonest. People can justify things to themselves with lots of excuses, but it doesn't make lying any less dishonest.
If people really object to the food prices, they don't have to eat it. I do think if you can't sit for 2 hours without eating, something's wrong with you. If something IS indeed wrong with you, the theater ought to let you bring a snack because they could be harming your health by refusing to let you eat.
Maybe they should post a sign, "No outside food without a doctor's note." Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Look, I am not trying to guilt anyone. Furthermore, I never said the theater owners were deserving of pity. Additionally, I accused Dags of playing semantics with his definition of rules, not with his definition of dishonesty.
I am not particularly bothered by people bringing in outside food and drink to movie theaters, when it is not allowed. I am bothered that people seem to justify doing so by accusing the theaters of bad practices.
There is an element (I think) of dishonesty in using those accusations to make those justifications -- and that is what bothers me.
Hopefully that clarifies my position a little bit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for a private business setting rules, let us away with the semantics.
I'm not even sure what this means. What I wrote about private businesses setting rules had nothing to do with semantics. It had to do with proper areas of authority.
quote:rivka, I'm sorry, I just don't understand your point, there. I can't identify how it isn't your problem; I'm not understanding the basic foundation. How is it your problem, and how have I implied that it is your problem?
Because you've set up this dichotomy: "Rather than give fair consideration to the position of the movie theater, everybody pretends their dishonesty is due to the bad practices of the theater."
You've left no room for the possibility that we've considered fairly the theater position but have rejected it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: ... everybody pretends their dishonesty is due to the bad practices of the theater, which is, I can tell you from working in movie theaters, flat out untrue.
Everybody? Everybody (even when taking your rather dubious equation of "sneaking in food == dishonest") except for Threads, JonHecht, Blayne Bradley, Lyrhawn, and myself on the first page who all at a glance pin as the main culprit the over-priced price of food at movie theatres.
I'm not necessarily making a point that says that your assessment is correct, I'm mainly concerned about your tendency (as in the opening post) to make rather hefty generalizations.
quote:Originally posted by TL: ... nobody fairly considers the reality of the situation the theaters are in, they just invent bad faith to justify doing what they want.
Here's another one. Nobody? Sigh.
Perhaps many people do fairly consider the reality the theatres are in and *disagree* about the preferred course of action.
I suspect that many people going into theatres and sneaking in food have already weighed the "bad karma" of that situation against many other morally grey actions such as downloading movies, buying black-market DVDs from shady stores, borrowing and ripping movies from friends, etc.
They've already made the decision that sneaking into movie theatres with food is the best (moral+entertainment value)/cost decision. So I find the tactic of assuming that they haven't weighed these issues and attempting to guilt them into compliance is inherently flawed. You're not really telling them anything they do not already know.
One more point, one amusing part is I wonder if many of the customers that you're railing about are actually simply attempting to save face, yours and theirs.
As in this example:
quote:Originally posted by TL: Yet people always bring in outside food and drink, and act absolutely mystified when they are told it is not allowed.
Rather than tell you point blank, "your food sucks and is outrageously expensive" they can pretend that they missed the signs in an attempt to spare your feelings of pride about the cinema food and save face about being on a budget.
Just a thought, although I imagine that simply dismissing people as idiots might be more satisfying Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You've left no room for the possibility that we've considered fairly the theater position but have rejected it.
Bingo!
And now, I am going to step out and do the stuff I have been avoiding all day. If anybody sees me here in the next couple hours, please glare at me and ask how the packing and data tables are going. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is neither my fault nor my problem that the business' model is so severely flawed, and I resent you implying that it is.
I think I understand TL's frustration, while sharing Dagonee's and others' surprise at the blind spot he seems to be exhibiting.
You've said you rarely bring food into the movie theater. So on those occasions, isn't it 'not your problem' simply because you break the rule and don't get caught at it?
I am a bit baffled at that. Where is the right to bring food into a movie theater?
--------
In literal terms, I think Dagonee is right: it is bait and switch, because the theater I patronize regularly (multiple times a month), I'm thinking back carefully and I can't recall a single sign or notice of any sort prohibiting outside food. I'll look next time, but I can say with certainty there isn't a well-posted, larged lettered sign.
However, in reality everyone knows the rule. Even the guys who bring in blatant fast food and expect to be let by know it. So in that sense, it's not bait and switch, because we all already know what we're getting into.
This is not to say that I don't occasionally bring in food myself-in the past it's usually been when I hit the gas station to tank up beforehand, generally. Or as a high-school moviegoer, when I was down to gathering up my quarters;). But I don't enter into the situation thinking, "They've got no right to dictate to me what I can and can't eat in their theater."
It is their theater, after all. Purchasing the ticket does not grant the ticket holder unlimited rights to occupy that seat, after all.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I've set up that dichotomy amongst people who sneak outside food and drink into movie theaters, yes -- of course there are entirely different categories of movie-goers, such as people who don't buy, or sneak in outside snacks, as well as those who buy snacks from the theater.
Fairly considering the theater position and rejecting it, and then sneaking in outside food and drink, I would consider to be an act of dishonesty.
Rejecting the position in and of itself is fine.
What you wrote about rules is that you reject a business's authority to make rules, but then you outlined the circumstances under which you will accept their authority to make rules, using different terminology. The end result is rules, and whether I use the word "rules" or not, we agree upon the outcome, the result is the same; we see that particular issue the same way. The only disagreement there would be a semantic one. I should have made that more clear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think her description works for movie theaters too.
quote:There are no backdoor fees. You pay for a ticket. The price is clear. You can choose to purcahse it or not. If you do so, you will gain admittance to the movie. You pay for snacks. The prices are clearly posted. You don't have to have snacks. There is no fraud. There is no bait and switch. Is there anyone who doesn't know movie theater food is expensive? Is there anyone who doesn't know why? There is zero trickery involved. There are no secrets; the way movie theaters operate is up-front and above-board. There is no element of dishonesty in the fact that they have to charge high prices
Ah, but apparently they DON'T know why. My best friend worked at a theater for years and not a week went by that she didn't tell me a story when she was working at the stand about customers complaining to her about the insane price of the food. Your stance, and that of the theaters, is that concession items are essential to the operating costs of the theater yes? The people coming in the door don't know that. They think their ticket pays for that, and frankly that's fair to assume. When they see the jacked up price of the crappy food they think you are just gouging them.
But if in reality the concession stand is a integral part of the theater's operating costs, and people don't know that and are given no other option but to buy theater consumables then it's a backdoor fee.
The thing is, a large pop at the theater is like four dollars, but it's a buck fifty at the 7-11 next door. If the theater charged $15 for a ticket and $1.50 for the pop (and that's profitable all by itself), at least people know going in what the ACTUAL cost of the ticket is, and they might not go. Instead, you lower the cost of the ticket to lure them in, then jack up the price of concessions to get the lost revenue from the ticket. So you lure them in, and drop the boom. It's also really not fair for reasons Jenna brought up. People are essentially paying two prices. Those who don't eat are getting a discount. People who DO eat are essentially subsidizing everyone else. How is that fair? It has to either be one or the other. If they don't need the insane mark up on snacks to actually run the theater, then it's extreme price gouging. If they DO need it, then it's actually a hidden cost of the ticket itself that only some patrons pay and others don't, making it unfair.
To borrow from what Jenna was saying, and this is just for an example without research. Let's say that a theater needs to make $10 from every patron in order to have enough money to run the theater. A ticket costs $7. A pop actually costs a dollar, but the jack up the price to four, and the same for a popcorn, because they need the extra money to balance it out. My friend and I go to the theater and we both buy a ticket, but she buys a popcorn and pop as well. Together we spent $20, so the theater is happy, but in reality she basically subsidized my ticket via her marked up food. If my ticket had been $10 and I hadn't bought any food and she had, just like before, she would have saved $3.
Can you honestly say that's fair?
Edit to add: Sorry if this is late, this thread is moving pretty quickly.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I don't see how fair enters into it.
If the theater jacked up prices to $15, would you go? Probably not. A secondary question might be, if the theate jacked up prices to $15, would that cover the costs? Probably not. If the studio takes 90% of ticket sales, the difference between a $7 ticket and a $15 ticket is not $8 for the theater; it's 80 cents.
That's the reality of the situation.
Can someone please explain to me where my blindspot is? I'd like to know -- not to argue. I'd just like to know.
What is this blind spot?
What am I missing?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If the theater jacked up prices to $15, would you go? Probably not
Precisely!
So you lower the cost to get them in the door right? Then what happens to make up the rest of that cost?
And as for your secondary question: If the studios really take that much of the ticket sales, wouldn't it make sense to drop the price of a ticket from $7 to $1, then just raise the price of a regularly priced food item by a dollar? They'd still come out ahead 40 cents, and people would buy a LOT more of them.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I will concede that perhaps it isn't as clear to people as I thought, that studios make the ticket money, and the theaters make the concessions money. Certainly working in theaters, customers commented knowledgably on the topic with frequency, and so I assumed it was common knowledge.
I will also concede that if theaters do not have signs clearly posted, that's a bad practice.
However, all the theaters where I have worked had signs clearly posted. All the theaters I have attended had signs clearly posted. Going from personal experience, customers often believe there is no sign, because they didn't see it. But it's there, believe me.
At the theater where I work now we have a giant digital clock displayed through the front glass of the box office window, clearly visible, right next to the cashier.
How many times a day do you suppose someone asks the cashier what time it is?
Constantly.
Mucus, clearly I was meant to take offense at your post.... I won't, but I will just point out that nowhere did I call anyone an idiot.
As for generalizing, yes, I was generalizing, and that was my mistake; I should not have assumed that people would realize that if I was talking about people sneaking in outside food and drink, and said "everyone", I meant "everyone" (or even "most people") "who bring in outside food and drink" rather than EVERYONE.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I need to repent ... I forgot that you could get your hand stamped at the water park and go out and get back in. So if you were really motivated, you could leave a cooler full of ice and lunches in your car and go out to eat it and get back in - or go somewhere else to buy lunch (soaking wet?) and come back. So they haven't made it impossible to eat without paying their overprices - just very difficult. And I guess that's fair; you can pay more for the convenience of being allowed to eat in the park or pay less and put yourself to more trouble.
As for the movies, the "reality of the situation" is that the system cheats customers. It may not be the theater's fault, but most customers don't know that. They'll fight back against being cheated.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:And as for your secondary question: If the studios really take that much of the ticket sales, wouldn't it make sense to drop the price of a ticket from $7 to $1, then just raise the price of a regularly priced food item by a dollar? They'd
If you were a movie studio, would you do business with a theater that tried that? Instead of making $6.30 per ticket, you'd make $.90.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Can someone please explain to me HOW the system cheats customers? To be fair, you know, a lot of people actually like movie theater snacks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Like I said before, it fails to evenly distribute the costs of theater operations throughout the customer population. Those who frequent the concessions stands pay a premium over and above the rest that subsidizes the ticket prices for the other people.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I think Lyrhawn just did.
quote:People who DO eat are essentially subsidizing everyone else.... To borrow from what Jenna was saying, and this is just for an example without research. Let's say that a theater needs to make $10 from every patron in order to have enough money to run the theater. A ticket costs $7. A pop actually costs a dollar, but they jack up the price to four, and the same for a popcorn, because they need the extra money to balance it out. My friend and I go to the theater and we both buy a ticket, but she buys a popcorn and pop as well. Together we spent $20, so the theater is happy, but in reality she basically subsidized my ticket via her marked up food. If my ticket had been $10 and I hadn't bought any food and she had, just like before, she would have saved $3.
If I go to the theater and buy no food, I (apparently) am not paying my fair share of the theater's operating costs, which have to be made up for by overcharging the customers who do buy food. So those customers pay for part of the cost of ME seeing the movie. That's cheating.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
So, in your mind, is any business that doesn't evenly distribute the costs of its operation amongst all of its customers cheating people?
There is such a disparity in every business I can imagine. If a customer spends more at the grocery store than another customer, he is covering more costs. If a customer requires additional services from his bank, or chooses a premium account, he has covered more costs.
Without some kind of coersion or trickery, I don't see how disparity in the spending of customers equates to cheating.
More detail? I'm missing something. I must be.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I will concede that perhaps it isn't as clear to people as I thought, that studios make the ticket money, and the theaters make the concessions money. Certainly working in theaters, customers commented knowledgably on the topic with frequency, and so I assumed it was common knowledge.
I will also concede that if theaters do not have signs clearly posted, that's a bad practice.
However, all the theaters where I have worked had signs clearly posted. All the theaters I have attended had signs clearly posted. Going from personal experience, customers often believe there is no sign, because they didn't see it. But it's there, believe me.
At the theater where I work now we have a giant digital clock displayed through the front glass of the box office window, clearly visible, right next to the cashier.
How many times a day do you suppose someone asks the cashier what time it is?
Constantly.
Mucus, clearly I was meant to take offense at your post.... I won't, but I will just point out that nowhere did I call anyone an idiot.
As for generalizing, yes, I was generalizing, and that was my mistake; I should not have assumed that people would realize that if I was talking about people sneaking in outside food and drink, and said "everyone", I meant "everyone" (or even "most people") "who bring in outside food and drink" rather than EVERYONE.
Keep in mind that a lot of the problem is WHERE the sign is posted as well, if it is posted at all.
If the sign is posted on the door you go though AFTER you have already paid for the ticket, then it still isn't anything but a bait and switch.
To be honest, I take food into the movies all the time, but I don't rub peoples noses in it. I don't feel it is my fault that the theater has a poor business model, nor and I willing to pay $5.00 a soda. To me that is a crime, and since we can't be forced to buy it, no harm is done. I wouldn't be buying it even if I didn't have any food with me.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
If you were a customer at a bank, and this bank was able to provide customers of its basic services reduced rates, specifically because their premium accounts generated additional income -- and without the premium accounts, they would not be able to provide the reduced rates -- is that cheating the customers who use the premium accounts?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
by the way
It *does* cost the theaters money when people bring in outside food and drink, because most of the time, people who bring in the outside food just leave their garbage in the theater. It takes time to clean theaters between shows, the messier the theater, the more the time, and time spent is payroll spent, and payroll is money.
So that is another way theaters are hurt by this activity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There is such a disparity in every business I can imagine. If a customer spends more at the grocery store than another customer, he is covering more costs. If a customer requires additional services from his bank, or chooses a premium account, he has covered more costs.
Yeah, but that all has to do with people receiving equal services for equal amounts of money.
You just used two examples that aren't really fair. To make them fair, two people go into a store and buy $15 worth of groceries that are artificially cheaper than the rest of the groceries, and then the second person buys another $15 worth of groceries that are actually worth $5 in order to make that first $15 as cheap as it was. In other words, the first guy got $20 worth of groceries for $15. The second guy got $25 worth of groceries for $30. The second guy just paid for $5 worth of the first guy's groceries.
You see the difference?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Mucus, clearly I was meant to take offense at your post.
Clearly? I don't see how.
quote: I meant "everyone" (or even "most people") "who bring in outside food and drink" rather than EVERYONE.
You completely missed the point. You opined that "everybody pretends their dishonesty is due to the bad practices of the theater" and that you would prefer "Yeah, we know it hurts the theater, but we don't care, we do it anyway; screw the theater. We don't want to pay high prices."
Well, I just listed four people that on the first page just said pretty much that. Granted, they don't accept your moral judgments about the situation (and Lyrhawn in particular has moved onto other issues), but they do clearly note that their *primary* problem is with the low cost effectiveness of theatre food as opposed to other issues.
Edit to add: You can probably add Kwea to that list.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:If the sign is posted on the door you go though AFTER you have already paid for the ticket, then it still isn't anything but a bait and switch.
Incidentally, why would that be a bait and switch? Were you baited with the expectation of being able to brng in outside food? Was there a sign that said, "Food Allowed" and then when you go inside you can see that it really says "Only Our Food Allowed"?
where is the bait? where is the inherent expectation that you can take food into any public or private institution so long as they don't have a sign?
Any place that doesn't have a sign prohibiting a certain behavior is actually inviting that behavior?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the bank analogy as direct as the grocery store. Neither fits perfectly as the structure of how money is changing hands for what services is totally different.
quote:It *does* cost the theaters money when people bring in outside food and drink, because most of the time, people who bring in the outside food just leave their garbage in the theater. It takes time to clean theaters between shows, the messier the theater, the more the time, and time spent is payroll spent, and payroll is money.
I'm not sure I buy this either. Movies run on a schedule, as in, if there's a fifteen minute break between movies before it restarts for the next showing, that isn't going to get bumped back because of a McDonald's bag in the fourth row.
I might agree that it would take marginally more time to clean a theater, but people on cleaning detail are on the clock regardless. If someone is working 9 to 5 at the theater cleaning up, then an extra five minutes doesn't much matter here and there unless you make them clock out whenever they aren't actively cleaning the theater, which would be preposterous.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
[/quote]Granted, they don't accept your moral judgments about the situation [/quote]
I haven't made any moral judgements about the situation. If they acknowledged that it was dishonest, but that they didn't care, then I applaud them.
3
Lyrhawn, no, I don't really see the difference; I mean I do, but I don't think your analogy of groceries is an accurate analogy. It would only be accurate if theaters were charging wildly different ticket prices to offset the additional costs; that would make it unfair to those who had to pay the extra mark up. But I think my bank analogy is closer, because the concessions are an optional item. Nobody has to buy concessions, some choose to, because of some perceived value.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Lyrhawn, you're right, there is a schedule. The schedule has to be maintained; if the theaters are not very messy, one person might be able to clean the auditoriums while sticking to the schedule. When the theaters are messier, it might take more people to maintain the same schedule. It might be the difference, on a busy weekend, between having a cleaning crew of three people, and a cleaning crew of four people, to cover the same ground in the same amount of time. It *does* cost us money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, no, I don't really see the difference; I mean I do, but I don't think your analogy of groceries is an accurate analogy. It would only be accurate if theaters were charging wildly different ticket prices to offset the additional costs; that would make it unfair to those who had to pay the extra mark up. But I think my bank analogy is closer, because the concessions are an optional item. Nobody has to buy concessions, some choose to, because of some perceived value.
Okay, but the problem with that is that you've said that the theater gets most of it's operating budget from the sale of concessions, meaning that the actual theater wouldn't even exist if not for the concession sales. If no one bought concession items, the theater wouldn't exist, so actually, someone has to, or there's no theater.
But more importantly, since the theater needs money they aren't getting from ticket prices, they jack the price of the food way the heck above what it SHOULD be. It's really a question of fair value. If a medium drink costs $1.50 everywhere else but it costs $4.00 at the theater, and you aren't allowed to buy the $1.50 version, then you're paying an outrageous markup. If the price of a ticket that everyone else pays covered the operating costs of the theater, that pop would be a lot cheaper, meaning you'd be paying the same as everyone else, and then getting fair value for the money you spend at the concession stand instead of making it possible for them to pay the low price that they have to pay, otherwise as you've also said, the ticket prices would be bigger and no one would go to the movies at all.
The difference really is in fair value, because that to me, and a lot of people, is where the swindling is happening, and I'm not sure you get that. The reason I don't think you get it is your grocery store analogy. In your version of the analogy, people are paying 1 unit for 1 unit in that, every dollar they spend on groceries gets them equal value of groceries to every other dollar spent.
If you charged for drinks what 7-11 did, I think you'd only rarely have a problem with people sneaking drinks in. But theaters charge three and four times what 7-11 charges. We KNOW it costs a lot less than the theater is charging, and they don't allow us to bring in what 7-11 sells. So when a theater shuts out the competition then jacks the price up, of COURSE we're going to cry foul.
And I think part of the disconnect here is that you think when people choose to buy concessions, they've waived all rights to complain about how screwed they're getting. Just because they pay the ridiculous mark up doesn't mean they think it's a fair price, it just means they're really thirsty and have decided to abide by the no bringing in outside drinks rule. The unfairness comes in the fact that, despite the fact that they are apparently willing to pay it (because they have no other honest option), it's STILL unfair. It isn't tacit approval.
quote:Lyrhawn, you're right, there is a schedule. The schedule has to be maintained; if the theaters are not very messy, one person might be able to clean the auditoriums while sticking to the schedule. When the theaters are messier, it might take more people to maintain the same schedule. It might be the difference, on a busy weekend, between having a cleaning crew of three people, and a cleaning crew of four people, to cover the same ground in the same amount of time. It *does* cost us money.
Hm, that makes sense. Again, I wish I could see official figures from the theater I go to from before and now after they went from no outside food to free for all. While I believe that your point makes logical sense, I'd still like to see hard data on that one.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Everything you just said is true.
I think the gulf between my perception of these facts and your perception of these facts lies in whether or not people are getting screwed. You say they are getting screwed because they do not get fair value for the $4.00 Coke. I mean, this Coke is not laced with cocaine or anything; so you are absolutely right. It is not fair value.
I say they are not getting screwed because nobody NEEDS the $4.00 Coke and they are not forced to buy it. If the problem is thirst, the theater surely has a drinking fountain. Also, I know that the theater is not making an outrageous profict margin by charging these prices; I know that the $4.00 Coke is a necessity.
I think the difference is a disagreement about intent. I know the theaters' intention is not to screw everybody and gouge everybody. When I hear people talking about unfairness, and baiting and switching, and gouging, it sounds as though they believe the theater is motivated by unreasonable greed.
That isn't true, and it is that point which I am attempting to clarify.
At the same time, I believe that others who have made the point that the prices seem to be unfairly high would like me to understand that when they sneak in outside food and drink, they're not trying to screw over the movie theater.
So we're faced with two opposing realities:
On one hand, the theaters are not trying to screw people over, they have to charge that much to stay in business.
On the other hand, the customers are not trying to screw the theaters over, but they want to get fair value for their money.
I understand that, but punishing the theaters for their "flawed business model" is something I don't agree with. Or at the very least, if the end result must be punishment, at least let's not resent the movie theaters fot it.
They're doing their best.
Personally, movies and movie theaters are a big part of my life. From an early age, I have always loved the experience of seeing great movies with a crowd on the big screen, and I've always worked in and around movies and movie theaters. I know a lot of good people (including presidents and vice presidents) who work in these companies, and believe in honesty, and fairness, and who are forthright ethical people.
I'd like to see them at least be treated fairly, and not resented. They got stuck with this business model, too.
So be fair to your movie theaters, folks. I don't care if you sneak in outside food and drink, but at least understand that it is not greed or trickery that motivates the people who run your local movie theaters.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. If you are caught not carding, you lose your job. If you are caught selling to underage customers, you are arrested and the store is fined. And, obviously, you lose your job. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I was trying to address the issue of people ignoring why rules are there in the first place. Too many times, people look only at their own convenience, and ignore what effect it might have on the clerk (or ticket sales guy, or concessions girl). Walking into a theater without paying for a ticket(as was mentioned before) could cause that salesman to lose his job, like driving off with gas could cause the clerk to lose her job. It's not even the individual store, or theater;s, decision on a lot of things. It could be the company that sets those rules, so by taking it out on the sales clerk, you're taking it out on someone who has no control over it.
I really don't think taking food into a theater and stealing are the same thing. Taking food into a theater means the theater does not gain revenue. Stealing from a theater means they LOSE revenue they already had. It's a significant difference in my mind, at least. Then again, I rarely, if ever, go see movies. I prefer a pause button for bathroom breaks and homemade popcorn, thanks.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
And again, nobody ever said taking outside food into a theater was the same thing as stealing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wanted to comment on something back on the beginning of the first page but got caught up in the movie theater thing. I thought Samp's post on little white lies was interesting. On one hand, I wonder what life would be like if literally no one lied and we always told the truth 100% of the time. I use lies that have no real consequence all the time, like when someone asks me if something bothers me and I say no when it does to be polite, or I lie if someone asks me if I want to do something and I say no but fudge the reason why. Lies like that are like grease on the skids of life. I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful, though the only specific instances I can think of involve romantic relationships and how lies can actually lead to a lot of disappointment and pain down the road. But I consider that a separate category.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I support and understand TL's position and explanation of the potentially-lost revenue caused be people bringing in food to a theater, and will now try to refrain from bringing in food more than I previously may have, out of respect for everyone in TL's position.
(I have not read this whole thread at this point, I'm in page 2 somewhere, but need to sleep. I hope this isn't off-topic now)
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I'm not sure how movie theaters ended up in the crappy position they are in today; I really find it dishonest to use overpriced snacks to cover the actual cost of seeing the movie. However, I'm pretty certain that blaming any theater manager or other staff for it is throwing fire at the wrong man. Thus, I don't buy concessions, but I don't bring in food either. I don't really feel the need to munch on something if I'm seeing a movie for the first time; I don't like being distracted. Repeated viewings at home though, I'll grab a snack.
Everyone I know is going less and less to theaters these days (I blame the shortage of great movies and the economy), but hopefully someday there an be a better solution than the business model they're currently stuck with.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: I jaywalk, trespass, set off illegal fireworks, drink out of open containers in cars, tag public property with stickers, sneak into private pools for residential divisions and bring my friends, drink absinthe with thujone, baldly walk into movie theaters without paying, speed, make illegal u-turns, aid and abet pot smokers, and probably a host of other things.
But at the same time, I follow a sort of a 'don't lie, cheat, or steal' rule and it has made my life really confusing because people are astoundingly reliant on little white lies. And I can't pirate games.
I find this dicotomy very strange. How can you justify things like walking into a movie theater without paying and yet worry about telling the sort of little white lies even as a form of politeness.
Why do you see the latter as a more egregious form of dishonesty than the former?
Most of those rules you feel free to ignore were put in place for legitimate reaons. For example, my neighor's roof caught on fire because of illegal fireworks and it did tens of thousands of dollars of damage (this was 25 years ago, today I'm sure the damage would have tallied in the hundreds of thousands.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I can answer the bank question. We make our money off loans. If a bank had no loans, we'd have to close for lack of revenue. So in effect, having a loan is subsidizing the products available to everyone who doesn't.
I think I remember the CEO once mentioning that a member has to have $5,000 on deposit with us before we break even on Bill Payer alone. Yet, by offering free bill payer, we increase the chances of bringing in new accounts so it's in our best interest to take an initial loss and hope to make it up later.
Business is always a careful balance of making folks think they got a really great deal and making a decent profit. People shop where they perceive the deal (and folks have different criteria there. I'd rather pay more for great service than get the lower price.)
I think the problem is one of expectations. We expected theme park food to be as much as the ticket price, so we didn't spend more than we expected. Happy customers. At the movies, we expect to drop $10 on a Coke and a Twizzler. Happy customer. I think the real answer is to help align the customer's expectations with reality, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Marketing?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But the difference between the bank and the movie theater or amusement park, is that a bank can't legally prevent those who use bill payer at their bank from getting their loans from another bank. I can choose to use bill-payer from a bank that offers it free but has a high annual fee on credit cards, but then choose to get my credit card from the bank that has no annual credit card fee but charges for bill-payer. I can shop around and get each service from the bank that offers me the best deal. If banks made serious efforts to stop me from doing that, they'd likely be nailed with an anti-trust suit.
What the movie theaters and amusement parks are doing is creating an effective monopoly on food eaten on their premises. Just like all monopolies, that monopoly allows them to charge outrageous prices for substandard products to everyone who wants to eat on their premises.
The price of popcorn and drinks at a movie theater is a buried cost. Few people are going to consider differences in the price of concessions when they are choosing where to see a movie. So it is to the advantage of movie theaters to keep the up front cost of the ticket low to draw in customers and then nail them at the candy counter. Until their is some equivalent of anti-trust laws that makes it illegal for movie theaters and amusement parks to monopolize on the concessions (and that seems highly unlikely to happen any time soon), expect this business model to dominate.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:The effect is not identical to theft, because you are not taking away something that they physically owned, but it is similar, because your activity causes them not to gain revenue they otherwise might have.
Except that not buying food has exactly the same effect as bringing in food. You can't read the mind of the person who brings in food and determine that if they had not brought in food, they would have bought food, because in many cases they wouldn't have. And bringing food definitely doesn't have the same effect as shoplifting, because the theater loses nothing.
The theater loses an opportunity to take advantage of a market it has worked to create. I can see two parallels to this type of business situation. First is the use of loss leaders in retail stores. Best Buy (for example) will heavily advertise cheap merchandise (DVDs, electronics) that are below normal prices. They make little to no profit on these items but by having them for sale, they bring customers into their stores which leads to increased sales of other merchandise which is not marked down and does turn a profit for the store. There is no deception in the fact that the rest of Best Buy's stock is not as cheap as the specific merchandise they advertised. Nor is the customer obligated to purchase other items in order to offset the store's loss on the discounted items. The store has just created a favorable position for itself by getting more people to walk in. It also takes the risk that the customers buying the discounted items will not buy anything else. That's just a business decision to be made. What would be the equivalent of cheating (to bring this around to the movie theater example) is if another electronics/DVD/CD vendor had set up shop within Best Buy to take advantage of the market (customers in the store, intending to spend money) that Best Buy had worked to create buy sacrificing profits on a few items. (On a side note, simply because some people on buy on sale and others do not, it is not unfair to those who do not buy on sale, even if it is the profits from their purchases that pay for the discounts on other purchases. Everyone has the same opportunities and makes their own decisions.)
This is similar to the movie theater example because no one who goes to a theater is obligated to buy food there. The theater has to take that fact (some people not buying food) into account when making its business decisions. But the theater has created a market (customers walking in the door, willing to spend money) that provides the opportunity to turn a profit off of the concession sales. So long as the customer is fairly warned (for the sake of argument, by signs at the point of sale) that outside food is not allowed in, he or she is obligated to respect that rule or not patronize that theater. By violating that rule and sneaking food in, the customer is cheating the theater out of the legitimate opportunity it has created for itself. Customers who go to the theater and don't buy food or sneak any in may not be great for business, but they are not cheating the theater.
The other analogy I can think of is pirating movies/songs. This example is looser, but applies because a few people on this thread have said that because they would not have bought food from the theater anyway, they are justified in sneaking outside food in since there was never any potential for revenue for the theater. This is the exact same argument many people make about pirating, saying that they would not have bought the DVD/CD, so pirating the movie/music doesn't hurt sales. Therefore it's ok for them to pirate the material. I don't see how someone can support one view and not the other.
Edit (because AvidReader and The Rabbit posted while I was typing): Movie theaters/theme parks may have a monopoly on concessions on their premises, but you are free to eat before or after your movie. It's a matter of convenience. It may be more convenient for you to do all your banking at a single bank, if you're willing to pay for it. Or you may decide the savings are worth the inconvenience of banking at several locations. But you don't get to demand that one bank provide you access to the other bank's services at their location for your convenience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your example with banks is twisted - they don't charge their premium customers more. They charge the premium customers much less, and they charge their small-time customers out the wazoo. That's why you get free bill pay but $40 late fees - wealthier customers are more likely to use bill pay, more likely to schedule payments so nothing is every late, and less likely to need every dollar of their paycheck to keep afloat and so less likely to accidentally bounce a check.
I hate that - it is very, very expensive to be poor, and there is less choice there. You can argue that poorer customers are more expensive and so it is fair, but if you're using banks as an model of businesses, get the example right. The poor subsidize the services for the rich.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You have a point Kat but you are missing a big part of the picture, business accounts, and these could easily be considered premium customers. Services like free checking and bill-payer that are offered for personal accounts are rarely ever available for business accounts.
While I agree that it sucks to be poor and it sucks that banks charge more to people don't maintain a high balance in their accounts, that charge can be directly justified. If I maintain a balance of say, $50,000 in my account, the bank can loan that money to another custom and likely earn more than it costs to cover my bill payer expenses and what little interest they pay me. They offer me "benefits" to keep a large balance in my account because they profit from it. They charge more to people who don't maintain a balance, because it costs them more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I haven't made any moral judgements about the situation. If they acknowledged that it was dishonest
I still don't see how you can make this statement with a straight face (or keyboard, as the case may be). Calling something dishonest is making a moral judgment.
quote:Incidentally, why would that be a bait and switch? Were you baited with the expectation of being able to brng in outside food? Was there a sign that said, "Food Allowed" and then when you go inside you can see that it really says "Only Our Food Allowed"?
where is the bait? where is the inherent expectation that you can take food into any public or private institution so long as they don't have a sign?
Any place that doesn't have a sign prohibiting a certain behavior is actually inviting that behavior?
I have the right to carry food around with me. That is a right I retain up to the point it conflicts with some one else's rights. That's where the expectation comes from.
Any private establishment has the right to refuse me entry or to ask me to leave if I refuse to relinquish my right to carry food with me. The problem arises when that relinquishment requires me to forgo services for which I have already paid. If I'm asked to leave Macy's, there's no issue unless they try to make me leave any merchandise I've already paid for. No one would consider a request by Macy's to leave and not take my items with me to be legitimate.
A movie theater, by asking me to either leave without a refund or throw away my food, is trying to take something from me - either a prepaid right to see a movie or items that I own.
BTW, the signs banning recording equipment are right up front before the ticket box and large enough that I notice them at every theater I go to. Not so the food signs. I don't think this is a mistake. I think it's intentional. The movie theaters are trying to assert power they don't rightly possess, and that is the crux of my annoyance with them.
This is common in businesses today. Some stores argue that my entering their premises gives them the rights to search my bags because they have a small sign saying so on their entrance. I refuse to grant them that right, and wish everyone else would, too.
quote:This example is looser, but applies because a few people on this thread have said that because they would not have bought food from the theater anyway, they are justified in sneaking outside food in since there was never any potential for revenue for the theater. This is the exact same argument many people make about pirating, saying that they would not have bought the DVD/CD, so pirating the movie/music doesn't hurt sales. Therefore it's ok for them to pirate the material. I don't see how someone can support one view and not the other.
The difference being, of course, that the "opportunity" taken by pirating a dvd is one protected by federal law that creates an explicit right to a monopoly over copying, distribution, making derivative works, etc. The "opportunity" to sell food is not protected by any law. The enforcement of that rule - making people leave - is protected by state trespassing laws, but that's it. Your analogy relies on a right that doesn't actually exist.
quote:You have a point Kat but you are missing a big part of the picture, business accounts, and these could easily be considered premium customers. Services like free checking and bill-payer that are offered for personal accounts are rarely ever available for business accounts.
This is very true - business banking is quite expensive compared to what's available to private individuals. I was shocked when I opened my first business account.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: The theater loses an opportunity to take advantage of a market it has worked to create. I can see two parallels to this type of business situation. First is the use of loss leaders in retail stores. Best Buy (for example) will heavily advertise cheap merchandise (DVDs, electronics) that are below normal prices. They make little to no profit on these items but by having them for sale, they bring customers into their stores which leads to increased sales of other merchandise which is not marked down and does turn a profit for the store. There is no deception in the fact that the rest of Best Buy's stock is not as cheap as the specific merchandise they advertised. Nor is the customer obligated to purchase other items in order to offset the store's loss on the discounted items. The store has just created a favorable position for itself by getting more people to walk in. It also takes the risk that the customers buying the discounted items will not buy anything else. That's just a business decision to be made. What would be the equivalent of cheating (to bring this around to the movie theater example) is if another electronics/DVD/CD vendor had set up shop within Best Buy to take advantage of the market (customers in the store, intending to spend money) that Best Buy had worked to create buy sacrificing profits on a few items. (On a side note, simply because some people on buy on sale and others do not, it is not unfair to those who do not buy on sale, even if it is the profits from their purchases that pay for the discounts on other purchases. Everyone has the same opportunities and makes their own decisions.)
I think your analogy fails. A person can buy sale items at Best Buy and then go to another store to buy the other items they want. If Best Buy marks some items down to bring in customers and then marks up other items to compensate, people don't have to buy those other items or go without. They can simply go to a store that offers lower prices.
What the movie theaters do, would be equivalent to Best Buy selling inexpensive computers that are only compatible with their patented highly over priced cables. Or perhaps selling a cheap DVD player that would only play over priced DVDs sold by Best Buy.
And to be completely thorough, they would need a no refunds policy.
Posted by DanWard (Member # 11699) on :
I have to say, I find it difficult to understand the people who feel that theatres are somehow morally in the wrong. The theatre is providing a service, and being quite clear about the limitations of that service. If you don't like being banned from bringing your own food, don't go to the theatre. Nobody's forcing you to. If there's a profit to be made from having a cinema where people can take their own food, then surely someone will open up a business to fill that gap in the market. That's the beauty of a free market economy.
I think maybe a better shopping analogy would be supermarket loss-leaders - promotional items that shops lose money on, in order to inveigle customers to come into the shop and hopefully buy other things they can make a profit on. Some people choose to only buy loss-leaders, whereas others choose to buy more expensive items too. If we were to follow this equal-profits-per-customer idea, we'd hike the prices of loss-leaders and cut the price of luxury goods, so that the supermarket makes the same profit out of each kind of customer. But what happens then ? The people at the bottom of the market lose out. Some of them can't afford to shop at that supermarket at all any more. In the theme park example, a family that could afford to go to a theme park at $50, by being frugal with the extras they buy inside, now is faced with a $100 ticket price and can't afford to go at all.
Posted by DanWard (Member # 11699) on :
I have to say, I find it difficult to understand the people who feel that theatres are somehow morally in the wrong. The theatre is providing a service, and being quite clear about the limitations of that service. If you don't like being banned from bringing your own food, don't go to the theatre. Nobody's forcing you to. If there's a profit to be made from having a cinema where people can take their own food, then surely someone will open up a business to fill that gap in the market. That's the beauty of a free market economy.
I think maybe a better shopping analogy would be supermarket loss-leaders - promotional items that shops lose money on, in order to inveigle customers to come into the shop and hopefully buy other things they can make a profit on. Some people choose to only buy loss-leaders, whereas others choose to buy more expensive items too. If we were to follow this equal-profits-per-customer idea, we'd hike the prices of loss-leaders and cut the price of luxury goods, so that the supermarket makes the same profit out of each kind of customer. But what happens then ? The people at the bottom of the market lose out. Some of them can't afford to shop at that supermarket at all any more. In the theme park example, a family that could afford to go to a theme park at $50, by being frugal with the extras they buy inside, now is faced with a $100 ticket price and can't afford to go at all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The theatre is providing a service, and being quite clear about the limitations of that service.
Well that is the questions. Theme parks and amusement parks are rarely up front about the "no outside food" policy. At the very best, you find out about it at the ticket window, its certainly not in the advertisements. I usually buy my movie tickets on line and there is certainly never anything on the website about the theaters food policy. So I can easily see people (particularly people like me who don't go to the movies all that often), buying tickets online, stopping at a burger joint to pick food on the way to the movie and then being caught off guard finding out that the movie only allows food they sell inside the theater. The situation is even worse for a family whose read the advertisement for an amusement park (including prices), packed a lunch and then headed off for the day.
If the no outside food policy were clearly stated up front in large letters in all the advertising, you'd have a point. But it isn't and that isn't just an oversight.
quote:If you don't like being banned from bringing your own food, don't go to the theatre. Nobody's forcing you to. If there's a profit to be made from having a cinema where people can take their own food, then surely someone will open up a business to fill that gap in the market. That's the beauty of a free market economy.
You are overly optimistic about free markets. Virtually everyone I know who goes to movies or football games or amusement parks complains about the overpriced food. Certainly many people would be much happier with another system. But the free market actually encourages businesses to shift prices from "up front costs" to "hidden costs".
How many people factor in the cost of printer cartridges when they buy a printer or the cost of service when they buy car?
The free market encourages business to hide the real cost of products as well as possible because few people have the where with all to accurately estimate the hidden costs and factor them into their buying decisions.
[ July 28, 2008, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Theater policy on outside food is hardly a secret, and it has been posted at the ticket purchase desk at most (if not all) theaters I have been to, besides being widely known as a basic theater policy.
You're basically accusing theaters of a bait and switch with regards to bringing food into theaters with your "and that isn't just an oversight". That's ludicrous. Typical theater policy is well known, theaters make no effort to hide it, and the absence of the qualification in advertising in large letters is better explained by the cost of advertising and that theaters don't feel the need to make their food policy more prominent than what movies they're showing.
I am fairly confident that a theater allowing you to bring your own food could never operate in competition with one not allowing you to bring your own food and providing highly priced concessions. The ticket prices would (obviously) have to be substantially higher. People who are already used to going to a theater and not buying food or sneaking in their own would go to the cheaper theater and not buy or sneak in, and people used to buying food at the theater would go to the place where at least they get some food out of the price (on the whole).
A theater offering a better food selection might be able to have a go at it, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: A theater offering a better food selection might be able to have a go at it, though.
A theater in our area is opening up, showing second-run shows and serving actual meals.
That will be interesting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Food costs are not a hidden cost. Ask 100 people in any city in the US with a movie theater and I am willing to bet almost all of them can tell you approximately how much movie tickets are (to within a few dollars), that movie food is much more expensive than food bought elsewhere, and that movie theaters don't allow you to bring outside food in. In fact, I bet the percentage aware of these things is over 95%, maybe higher, in random samples.
Indeed, I bet quite a few of those people will tell you they either don't go to the theater as much because they spend too much on food, or that they don't buy food any more at the theater for much the same reason.
There's nothing hidden about it. Theaters, by structuring food the way they are, are keeping tickets just about as cheap as they can get, and passing the costs on to those who are willing to pay more for a particular experience at the movie theater: movie food.
Printer cartridge prices are a separate phenomenon. While there is some misperception as to how much ink one will use, most people buying one have had an inkjet printer for a time. Unless we're presupposing a huge case of amnesia, they know about the cost they're getting into. The more likely mechanism keeping people buying inkjet printers is discounting of future costs. That is, a dollar in the future is worth less to them than a dollar now. That people act this way is represented all over, and it makes sense that companies react to this known preference. Indeed, laser printer manufacturers have been working their way into getting into the price range that fits this niche for a while, and sales of laser printers are increasing a lot now that you can get a decent one for an up-front price of $100 to $150. It will take a while before they penetrate the main market of home printers, though: people who want to print photos, even if only occasionally.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, I don't have any qualms about smuggling food into theaters.
I don't think it's dishonest, exactly; it's like not wearing shoes in a 'No shirt, no shoes, no service' restaurant, and not pointing out the fact that you're barefoot to the waitress. I don't think there's an unspoken agreement to NOT bring in food; I think they have a standard that is contingent on their own efforts to enforce.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is a Theater "Brewvies" in Salt Lake that sells beer, pizza, sandwiches and stuff. They call themselves a cinema pub and I think technically they are considered a restaurant/pub not a theater. From what I'm told, they do very well.
As an interesting side note, its standard for restaurants to prohibit people from bringing in outside food and drink but people rarely question that. Fine restaurants often make most of their profit from selling wine with a hefty mark up but you rarely see or hear of people trying to sneak a bottle of wine into a nice restaurant.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The free market encourages business to hide the real cost of products as well as possible because few people have the where with all to accurately estimate the hidden costs and factor them into their buying decisions.
I think word you're looking for is "wherewithal." Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Arlington Drafthouse sells actual food. It's pricey, but it's not bad. They stringently enforce their no outside food policy, and that does make sense, because the audience sit at actual tables, which means they can fit many fewer people into the theatre.
I love going there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is also rather easier to catch someone sneaking a bottle of wine into a nice restaurant. Additionally, the typical clientèle of a nice restaurant is probably distributed differently, and spending some more on nice things is often part of the desired experience. All these make people's likely reaction to the policies rather different.
And, of course, none of the restaurants bother to put in large block letters that they won't allow outside food in, on their advertising, and most of them don't even post it near the entrance like theaters often do. Strangely, people know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For movie theatres, I don't either party is in the wrong. There is no moral obligation to not bring in food, and there is no moral obligation to sell food at cost.
Either side is welcome to try to enforce their wishes.
However, if a movie kicks someone out for bringing food, they need to refund the price of the movie ticket unless there is a sign out before the ticket is sold. "Everybody knows" doesn't count.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you were to smuggle a wine-bottle into a restaurant, would you be dishonest?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Food costs are not a hidden cost. Ask 100 people in any city in the US with a movie theater and I am willing to bet almost all of them can tell you approximately how much movie tickets are (to within a few dollars), that movie food is much more expensive than food bought elsewhere, and that movie theaters don't allow you to bring outside food in. In fact, I bet the percentage aware of these things is over 95%, maybe higher, in random samples.
Its hard to argue against statistics that are both irrelevant and made up.
I say irrelevant, because what makes the cost hidden is not that people don't know that theaters sell popcorn at inflated rates. It's that people can't easily compare the cost of seeing a movie at two different theaters including the cost of food.
If you were to ask 100 movie goers at random which local theaters had cheaper tickets or frequent low price coupons, I'd be willing to bet 95% of them could either tell you off the cuff or find the information on the internet. I sincerely doubt that more than 5% of them could tell you which theaters had that cheapest popcorn, candy and drinks and I know that this information isn't available until you are inside the theater.
Take for example Gilroy Gardens Park, on their website I can find the price of tickets and the list of restaurants inside the park, but the prices at the restaurants aren't advertised.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes.
Possibly not for relevant reasons.
--
A restaurant is different because its entire purpose is to sell food. Sneaking food into a restaurant is like sneaking into the back of door of a theatre without buying a ticket. Sneaking food into a theatre is like bringing your iPod with Dr. Horrible on it into a restaurant.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is a Theater "Brewvies" in Salt Lake that sells beer, pizza, sandwiches and stuff. They call themselves a cinema pub and I think technically they are considered a restaurant/pub not a theater. From what I'm told, they do very well.
I love Brewvies. It's one of the things that I miss most about Salt Lake. I used to specifically wait until mainstream movies made it to Brewvies before I saw them.
I rarely go to movies here because the only theaters they have are the mainstream first-runs, and I'd much rather wait for a new movie to come out on DVD and Netflix it than pay $8 a ticket to listen to some idiot behind me talk for two hours.
But between the indies at Tower and Broadway, and the second-runs at Brewvies, I went out to the movies quite a bit in Salt Lake. Those were the days.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Theater policy on outside food is hardly a secret, and it has been posted at the ticket purchase desk at most (if not all) theaters I have been to, besides being widely known as a basic theater policy.
I don't accept the rights of businesses to rely on something being "generally known" to restrict my actions. Especially since there are exceptions.
quote:And, of course, none of the restaurants bother to put in large block letters that they won't allow outside food in, on their advertising, and most of them don't even post it near the entrance like theaters often do. Strangely, people know.
Even more strangely, restaurants generally don't charge in advance for access to their restaurant.
At clubs that charge covers, I've usually seen big explicit signs about what can't be brought into the club.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I know of at least two cinema grills in the twin cities, where there is actual food served to actual tables in the theater. Better still, I've recently found a theater with a bar in it, so you can take your drink into the movie. They also have a pretty good food selection there compared to most movie theaters.
I've fallen into all three of the main movie-goer categories here. Sometimes I buy concessions, most often I see the movie without buying anything else, occasionally I've brought in outside food or drink. When I have smuggled in food, it was always something that wasn't available at the concession stand anyway, and never something like a whole meal from a fast food place.
--Enigmatic
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A "generally known" rule absolutely does not count.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure they can, they can go to each theater, or talk to friends. The cost of attending a movie once at the more expensive theater (to determine it is the more expensive theater) is amortized over the cost of attending several movies at the cheaper theater.
Additionally, if someone goes to a movie theater and finds the food is much more expensive than what they are used to, they can choose not to buy food at that time and not visit the theater again. Or even if they do choose to buy food at that time, they can choose not to visit the theater again. To justify that these hidden prices are causing customers to pay more, you must hypothesize that they either never bother to go to alternative movie theaters, assuming the one they are attending is the cheapest, or go to multiple movie theaters and totally ignore the food prices as they're attending each.
In fact, we can easily test if movie theaters are exploiting this 'hidden price' mechanism by comparing food (and ticket) prices between nearby movie theaters.
Unfortunately, I can't, because there aren't multiple movie theater chains in my area. There are a few places besides the main movie theaters that show movies, but they're not comparable (second run/art movies in lecture theaters and rooms with smaller screens rigged to show movies in, usually with few or no concessions to speak of).
But we could maybe prevail upon a hatracker in a larger city to investigate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you were to smuggle a wine-bottle into a restaurant, would you be dishonest?
If you know that restaurant prohibits this behavior, you do it anyway and try to cover it up -- then yes it would absolutely be dishonest. But then I think its dishonest to sneak food into a movie theater as well. I've never argued that it was honest or ethical. I believe any willful deception of others with the intent of creating an advantage for yourself (family or friends) at the expense of others is unethical. Sneaking food into a place where it is prohibit certainly qualifies.
I haven't been trying to argue that it was OK for people to do this. I've been trying to comment on the psychology that allows people to justify something that is clearly dishonest.
I think that when people perceive rules to be unfair, they have less compunction to follow those rules. When people perceive that someone is trying to cheat them, they feel less obligated to be honest in return.
The prices movie theaters charge for popcorn and drinks are often so high that people think they are being cheated. Under those circumstances movie theaters are going to have a very difficult time enforcing their monopoly on food in the theater. Its just human psychology.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They can't go to the theatre until AFTER they have bought a ticket. And people do often go to the nearest theatre. What you are proposing is absurd - that each customer should have to purchase a ticket from every theatre in order to comparison shop. Putting it isn italics doesn't make it true.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What amazes me about certain people is how they will break rules thinking they're not hurting anyone.
It should be noted that following rules can also often hurt people.
In the case of the theater, the theater is trying to subvert customers' rationality. It has realized that customers will choose to go to a movie if it costs $10 but won't go if the ticket price is $15. So it places the price at $10, and then once it has customers in the theater, it tempts them to buy overpriced snacks to cover the cost. It knows that once customers smell the popcorn, the customers (or their children) will feel the need to buy it, even if the customer would have rationally concluded it isn't worth the cost.
This does, to a degree, hurt the customer because it leads the customer to pay more than they intended to. (And if it weren't making customers do this, the theaters would have no incentive to set up their finances in that manner - they'd simply build costs into ticket prices instead.)
That is not to say that the theater is necessarily morally wrong to do this. But it is to say there are reasonable justifications for why customers might think it would be right to break such a rule. It would not be accurate to say that people who sneak food into theaters are simply liars with no sense of right or wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: as I noted, theaters I've been to post a sign around their entrance/ticket counter. We don't expect any business to put in big bold letters in their advertising all restrictions they might put on their service; many of them are merely posted near the entrance, and theater goers who do not notice but try to bring food in anyways are, IME, politely notified by theater staff that is isn't allowed. Do the clubs you're referring to put big block letters in their advertising about their no outside food/drink policies? That's the course of action being asserted as the only reasonable way to be 'quite clear about the limitations'.
Do you allow policies for access to services/products (whatever we're calling a movie viewing) provided by a private company that are posted in a visible place prior to entrance/enjoyment of that service/product to restrict your activities?
For that matter, there are numerous places (ones that don't sell food or drink) that don't allow outside food or drink inside. Some of them are really bad about posting it, too.
Also, being generally known was not a point about what is allowed to restrict action, but a point about how hidden the cost is. I'm not saying that being generally known means the theaters don't need to inform people, but that being generally known means that people are generally aware of the costs involved.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:ure they can, they can go to each theater, or talk to friends. The cost of attending a movie once at the more expensive theater (to determine it is the more expensive theater) is amortized over the cost of attending several movies at the cheaper theater.
Yes they can do this, but the difficulty of it means that most of them won't. Based on prior usage, I can calculate the net present cost of buying an ink jet printer vs. buying a laser printer too, but the difficulty of it means that most consumers won't do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's one bottom line for me: if it's more important to you to save a few (or over an extended period of time, a lot) of bucks than to abide by your host's requests, that's who you are. Sometimes it's who I am.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If people are going to the nearest theater, they aren't basing their decision on which is the absolute cheapest anyways.
And no, I'm not proposing that each customer go to every theater. Even in fairly large cities, there are often only a few theater chains to choose from (Saint Louis: two, perhaps three in reasonable reach of a particular starting location). People will often go to multiple of these in the course of normal movie watching (say, due to particular show times being more convenient). If any one had significantly more expensive food costs, the person would one, notice, and two, quite possibly tell other people ("let's go to a movie, I see theater ___ has a showing at ____." "No, that theater's food is way too expensive, lets go to ____ instead").
But as I said, we can test if theaters are exploiting some sort of 'hidden information' in this way. Just do a little survey of concession prices in an area with multiple theater chains.
Tres: you're presuming that people are paying more than they intended to. And you've ignored that theaters would still have an incentive to set it up that way even if people were paying exactly what they intend: price discrimination, between people who are willing to forgo food in order to obtain the cheaper price (still helping the theater pay off the costs of the movie), and people who do want to obtain food and will pay the higher price. If they charged a higher flat rate for tickets, they'd only get the people who would pay the higher price, and would lose a significant amount of revenue used to secure movies to show.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rabbit: I prefer to reason from the assumption that people aren't total idiots, and do things like notice large price differences if they see them in the normal course of attending movies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A restaurant is different because its entire purpose is to sell food. Sneaking food into a restaurant is like sneaking into the back of door of a theatre without buying a ticket. Sneaking food into a theatre is like bringing your iPod with Dr. Horrible on it into a restaurant.
I think the key factor is that restaurants generally don't charge to sit at a table, so people tend to understand that the table seats are intended for people who buy their food there.
Movie theaters charge you for a seat. So that is part of it. But many bars with live music, will have a cover charge as well. Yet people are far less likely to try to smuggle a six pack into a bar where they are watching a band. I think that's because even though beers served at a bar typically cost much more the beers purchased at a grocery, beers served in a place with live music are typically the same price as beers served in other bars. As a result, people don't feel as much like they are being cheated by the bar.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... I believe any willful deception of others with the intent of creating an advantage for yourself (family or friends) at the expense of others is unethical.
Worst bargainer in the world BTW Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
fugu, I'm not sure I understand your argument. Theaters have two potential income streams -- tickets and concessions. If there were no advantage to having lower ticket prices and higher concession prices, it would make sense for theaters to set prices so that they made a decent profit on the mandatory part (the ticket). But they don't. In fact the basic business strategy for the theaters is to charge break even prices on the tickets and depend on concession sales to make a profit. Since nearly all theaters follow this model I'm presuming that they see an advantage in it.
The only advantage I can postulate, is that ticket prices have more influence on the number of customers they get than concession prices. If you can come up with some other reason why the market has given us theaters that charge break even prices on tickets and depend on sales of outrageously priced concessions to make a profit, I'd be glad to hear it.
Otherwise, postulating that consumers will react exactly the same to high ticket prices and high popcorn prices contradicts what's happening.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For that matter, there are numerous places (ones that don't sell food or drink) that don't allow outside food or drink inside. Some of them are really bad about posting it, too.
Once again, I have no problem with a private business restricting outside food and drinks. I have a significant problem with them using that restriction as a means to confiscate a purchased service.
If a theater gives a refund, then I have no problem with it (other than the fact that I'll never go back there).
Nor do I think it's dishonest to not provide information to a private business about whether one is complying with their policies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And you've ignored that theaters would still have an incentive to set it up that way even if people were paying exactly what they intend: price discrimination, between people who are willing to forgo food in order to obtain the cheaper price (still helping the theater pay off the costs of the movie), and people who do want to obtain food and will pay the higher price. If they charged a higher flat rate for tickets, they'd only get the people who would pay the higher price, and would lose a significant amount of revenue used to secure movies to show.
Yes, that is true. (Although this is another thing that moviegoers who want food may object to - people don't always view price discrimination as fair.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rabbit: I prefer to reason from the assumption that people aren't total idiots, and do things like notice large price differences if they see them in the normal course of attending movies.
You are presuming that the primary competition faced by movie theaters is from other movie theaters. For most people that's not true. The choice isn't simply between going to theater A and theater B, its between going to a movie and doing something else entirely.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful ...
quote: A polite lie is a lie that a politeness standard requires, and which is usually known to be untrue by both parties. It is heavily dependent on culture if such lies are acceptable. A common polite lie in international etiquette is to decline invitations because of "scheduling difficulties".
The East Asian "saving face" may require this. A person or institution states an untruth, and by social convention, expresses something that cannot be said as such. As such, the polite lie is euphemistic. However, a person from a foreign culture, not recognizing the implied untruth, will find this insulting. For example, in Japanese, answering "no" is seen as impolite. Therefore, one answers "yes", but actually does nothing.
In fact, I'm going to restate my suspicion that most people that get "caught" in theatres with food and claim that they didn't know are just consciously or unconsciously using a variant of this idea. They don't want to get in an argument with the front-line guy, they know its not their decision and they don't want to offend them by expressing dissatisfaction with the food. Saying that they didn't know is an easy way to politely lie and get out of the situation even if both parties know it is not the truth.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:If the sign is posted on the door you go though AFTER you have already paid for the ticket, then it still isn't anything but a bait and switch.
Incidentally, why would that be a bait and switch? Were you baited with the expectation of being able to brng in outside food? Was there a sign that said, "Food Allowed" and then when you go inside you can see that it really says "Only Our Food Allowed"?
where is the bait? where is the inherent expectation that you can take food into any public or private institution so long as they don't have a sign?
Any place that doesn't have a sign prohibiting a certain behavior is actually inviting that behavior?
When that activity is as basic as eating, or making a qualitative decision about WHAT I am allowed to eat at a given time....yes.
The bait and switch is that I am paying for a TICKET, but then told I cannot use that ticket if I do a completely unrelated activity...eating food I have already bought. And I am being told this AFTER the ticket has been purchased, if at all.
A ticket is a contract. I buy this ticket to allow me access to the movie. I don't buy it to allow me to buy/consume crappy food and overpriced drinks....yet because of a crappy business model that is no fault of my own, that is what the company tried to make the ticket mean.
I understand you points, man....I just don't care what they think of me, nor will I allow them to run my life by allowing them to control my eating habits.....not even for 2 hours of my time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And you've ignored that theaters would still have an incentive to set it up that way even if people were paying exactly what they intend: price discrimination, between people who are willing to forgo food in order to obtain the cheaper price (still helping the theater pay off the costs of the movie), and people who do want to obtain food and will pay the higher price.
You are ignoring the possibility that more people would buy food and drinks if they were more reasonably priced or higher quality. This isn't an either or situation, its a balancing act. What we see is that theaters are depending more and more on the side products, candy and popcorn, to make their profit. This suggests that the demand for movie tickets is far more elastic, than the demand for food once people are in the theater.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Once again, I have no problem with a private business restricting outside food and drinks. I have a significant problem with them using that restriction as a means to confiscate a purchased service.
To be fair, Dag, I've never been to a theater that wouldn't give me my money back if I decided not to see the movie. If you decided you would rather eat your food than see the movie, they wouldn't confiscate your ticket - they would (probably) give you your money back.
One problem I see with it is that they don't prohibit food in the theater; it's not like stores that say "no food or drink" on the door. Everyone understands that those rules apply across the board. Theaters actually encourage you to eat in the theater, but only their food. If you don't want to be overcharged or you want to eat something other than what they offer, they just prohibit your food. That may not be illegal or fraudulent, but it certainly is unfair.
"You can't eat that here." "Why not? Other people are eating here." "You didn't buy it here." "I'm not going to buy any food here anyway, I don't like what you sell." "Well, you can't eat what you've paid for elsewhere even though eating is not prohibited in the theater."
Just unfair. People don't like being treated unfairly. That's why they lie. They shouldn't lie, of course. But that's why they feel justified.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
There's a theater chain in VA that serves meals (salads, pizzas, sandwiches, ice cream desserts and the like) during their movies. I do purchase food there on occasion, as there's more variety. Their tickets are cheaper and their popcorn is of a superior quality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:You are ignoring the possibility that more people would buy food and drinks if they were more reasonably priced or higher quality. This isn't an either or situation, its a balancing act. What we see is that theaters are depending more and more on the side products, candy and popcorn, to make their profit. This suggests that the demand for movie tickets is far more elastic, than the demand for food once people are in the theater.
Exactly, this is a balancing act, and theaters are trying to manage it.
(Btw, theaters have been relying on food and drink for operational costs andprofits for decades, now; ticket sales have gone almost entirely to pay off the cost of movies for quite some time).
And it is very easy to explain why people are less sensitive to the price of purchased food: they can better control how much they consume, varying their price of a movie. For instance, a person who bought popcorn and a drink might in the future buy only a drink, or only popcorn, or even nothing. Hence it makes far more sense for theaters to try to keep the ticket price as low as possible, and to attract as many people as possible, assuring they're able to keep getting the blockbuster movies, and then to extract additional money only from those willing to pay it to have the food provided by the theater.
edit: and if this is against other attractions, are you asserting people aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What we see is that theaters are depending more and more on the side products, candy and popcorn, to make their profit. This suggests that the demand for movie tickets is far more elastic, than the demand for food once people are in the theater.
This is not necessarily true. It may just mean that, if you divide them into two separate groups, people who are unwilling to buy concessions are also unwilling to pay higher ticket prices, but that people who are willing to buy concessions are simply willing to splurge more overall. Under that model, the concessions folks would keep coming even if ticket prices were raised, but the nonconcessions people would stop coming if ticket prices were higher.
So it might not be about different elasticities at all. It might just be a way for movie theaters to charge splurgers more overall without alienating other customers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:edit: and if this is against other attractions, are you asserting people aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing?
The average American sees less than 5 movies (in the the cinema) per year. Since there are many people in their teens and tweens who hit a movie almost once a week, you have to figure in a lot of people who go to the movies 1 or 2 or no times in a typical year. I suspect most people who attend a movie every week are aware of how much it costs them. I also suspect that a lot of those people who only go to movies once in a while aren't aware of how much they spend on ticket + food at a typical movie outing.
I'd add that a lot people are relatively poor money managers. I know people who are constantly spending more on outings than they expected because they routinely forget to adding "auxilliary" costs like gas, parking, and popcorn.
quote:And it is very easy to explain why people are less sensitive to the price of purchased food: they can better control how much they consume, varying their price of a movie. For instance, a person who bought popcorn and a drink might in the future buy only a drink, or only popcorn, or even nothing. Hence it makes far more sense for theaters to try to keep the ticket price as low as possible, and to attract as many people as possible, assuring they're able to keep getting the blockbuster movies, and then to extract additional money only from those willing to pay it to have the food provided by the theater.
Your argument is almost circular. If people's choice to attend a movie is less sensitive to food prices than ticket prices because they can easily regulate how much food they buy, then food concessions would be a highly elastic market. If the food prices got too high relative to ticket prices, people would buy less food and the theater would loose money. This would tend to drive food prices down and ticket prices up.
But food prices at theaters are notoriously overpriced which suggest that the market is in fact fairly inelastic. Once people are in the theater, a large fraction of them will buy the food regardless of the price. This may be because they are buying for a date or for their children. Or for many, popcorn and a soda are seen as an indispensable part of the movie going experience so once they've paid for the ticket, they will fork out a bundle for the food and drinks regardless of the price.
Look at it this way. The theater's profit margin on tickets is very low. This suggests that they have to keep ticket prices low to get people in the theater. In contrast, the profit margin on the food and drinks is enormous, suggesting that they don't need to keep those prices down to get people to buy popcorn and candy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This is not necessarily true. It may just mean that, if you divide them into two separate groups, people who are unwilling to buy concessions are also unwilling to pay higher ticket prices, but that people who are willing to buy concessions are simply willing to splurge more overall. Under that model, the concessions folks would keep coming even if ticket prices were raised, but the nonconcessions people would stop coming if ticket prices were higher.
But elasticity simply means that the number of customers you draw is more sensitive to the price you charge. You haven't actually said anything that contradicts the idea that the one market is more elastic than the other.
I doubt that movie goers can be easily split into two nice groups, those that don't care about prices and those that do. I suspect its much more of a continue.
Clearly, there are many movie goers who are displeased with the high price of food charged by the theater or there wouldn't be so many trying to bring in outside food. I'm quite confident that if the theaters dropped the price of soda and popcorn, they would sell more. They have set the prices to maximize their total profit (the product of the profit per item sold and the number of items they sell). The fact that the price has settled to such a high value indicates that the market is quite inelastic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That may not be illegal or fraudulent, but it certainly is unfair.
Why on Earth is it unfair? In what way, exactly?
I'm not considering arguments about bait and switch, though-literally accurate that they might be.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
What I'm taking away from this thread:
1) It's not illegal for me to carry around my private property with me, including food I have purchased.
2) If a contract (ticket purchase) isn't explicitly contingent on compliance with food related policies then I'm not breaking it by noncompliance with those policies.
3) If a business wants to refund my money and ask me to leave because I'm not complying with their policies which weren't an explicit part of our contract, it's fine with me.
4) Brewvies is awesome, and I go there as often as I can. A good burger, hot fries and a beer with a movie...hard to beat. (The major downside is that long movies and beer are not terribly compatible...I wish they'd re-introduce the intermission.)
5) "dishonesty" and non-compliance with a "policy" that is not an explicit part of a contract are NOT the same thing.
6) I lie all the time, and people who don't lie at least some of the time are either a) impressively virtuous people or b) adhering to a twisted set of ethics IMO. What I don't do is cheat or defraud, and I don't deceive people without what I consider to be a good reason (which might be as simple as preventing unpleasant feelings).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It looks like the park is the one who is lying.
The cost of admission does not cover the expense of the admission. So, they lie about the cost of admission and then go to great artificial lengths to pretend that it is against some principle for people to bring their own food.
That reminds me an awful lot of some of the arguments I've made here about why I hate the principle of tipping at restaurants. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But elasticity simply means that the number of customers you draw is more sensitive to the price you charge. You haven't actually said anything that contradicts the idea that the one market is more elastic than the other.
What I'm saying is that it is possible that concession sales may be equally as elastic as (or even more elsastic than) ticket sales. Even in those cases, it could still make sense for the theater to use concession prices to separate out big spenders from people unwilling to spend extra.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Dagonee, I don't see properly identifying an act of dishonesty as necessarily making a moral judgement. there are many situations in which an act of deception might not be immoral, and even some situations in which one might be moral.
The main thrust of your point seems to be that if a theater does not clearly post a sign at the box office, and if a theater refuses to refund your money, they are in the wrong. I have no problem with this.
My experience however, is that this happens so rarely that it is hard for me to imagine happening. Every theater I attend has signs at the box office. Every therater where I have worked has had signs at the box office. I have only ever asked someone to leave because of outside food or drink twice, and it had more to do with the behavior of those people than the actual issue of the policy, and certainly those people received a refund.
What I take away from this -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you are okay with a theater having, and enforcing, a no outside food or drink policy as long as signs are clearly posted at the point of entry.
If this is the case, we are actually in complete agreement on the issue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I take away from this -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you are okay with a theater having, and enforcing, a no outside food or drink policy as long as signs are clearly posted at the point of entry.
There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything wrong.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:That reminds me an awful lot of some of the arguments I've made here about why I hate the principle of tipping at restaurants.
That's exactly what I've been thinking for two days.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything.
Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree.
Or is this person making an honest mistake?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:That reminds me an awful lot of some of the arguments I've made here about why I hate the principle of tipping at restaurants.
That's exactly what I've been thinking for two days.
I also hate tipping in restaurants, but hiding the total cost of the meal is only one reason. For me, the bigger issue is putting the responsibility on the customer to decide how much the server should be paid, and using that mechanism to provide the necessary feedback on their work performance. In other words, I don't want to have to make employee performance evaluation and reward my job when I'm eating out. I'd rather have the manager train, monitor, manage, and pay his staff appropriately. (Taking that responsibility out of my hands by simply tipping 15% or 20% no matter what simply defeats the supposed purpose of tipping in the first place.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. Either it's a bad system or it's a pointless system.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree.
The problem with labeling flouting a policy as dishonest is that a business's policy is not the same as moral law. You can break policies without being dishonest, just like you can institute policies that are immoral. I think fees where a bank charges $45 dollars for being $1 short in your banking account are immoral, despite being "policy."
Labeling something as dishonest is absolutely a moral judgment. "Not following the policy" is newtrle. "Dishonest" is not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is this person aware of the policy? Is this person purposefully holding food where it is less easily seen (behind the back of a friend, or to their side on the opposite of the ticket taker)? If so, I disagree. Or is this person making an honest mistake?
Either/or.
Failing to disclose something is dishonest only when one has a duty to disclose, when the other party has a reasonable expectation that the fact will be disclosed, or when one is doing something else to convey the opposite meaning.
None of those apply to someone carrying food into a theater.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's another aspect to this: one who circumvents that policy through carrying food where it is not easily seen (as opposed to active deception such as saying "No, I have no outside food with me") is not being dishonest and is not doing anything wrong.
I disagree with this, Dag. By the letter of the rules, they're not being dishonest-assuming no sign is posted, of course, an assumption I don't grant in all cases. But there's a scale of dishonesty, with little while lies somewhere on one end, and for example lying under sworn oath far away on the other end.
Stealthily violating rules you know or have a strong suspicion of believing to exist surely falls somewhere on a scale of dishonesty.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Breaking the rules is not automatically dishonest. The rules have to have a moral force before breaking them is a problem. Depending on how they are broken, the label of "dishonest" may not apply.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Breaking the rules is not automatically dishonest. The rules have to have a moral force before breaking them is a problem. Depending on how they are broken, the label of "dishonest" may not apply.
Well, a rule is only as valid as a) the morality behind it, and b) the authority of the one making the rule.
If the first but not the second, you're behaving immorally for doing an immoral thing. If the second but not the first, you're behaving immorally for not abiding the legitimate rules of a legitimate authority (such as going to someone's home and, I dunno, carrying a firearm or something even if they don't permit guns in their home-that's just a pretty off-the-wall example).
The movie theater is the host, or at least the one you're renting a seat from. Should the have some say over what you do and say while renting and occupying that seat?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I've been teaching my kids that there is more to honesty than simply telling the truth, and that you can be dishonest without actually lying. I tell them if they are attempting to make people believe something that is not true, even just by their silence, they are being dishonest.
If I happen to have food in my purse when I walk into a theater and no one asks me if I have any, I'm not being dishonest. If I put it in my purse to hide it because I know it's not allowed and I'm trying to sneak it past them, I am being dishonest because I'm trying to deceive them into believing I am not bringing food.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Labeling something as dishonest is absolutely a moral judgment.
Keeping in mind the aforementioned exceptions, I hope. I'm certainly not a fan of equating dishonesty with immorality as an across-the-board judgement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A business model does not have moral force. I do not consider the "no outside food" to be a moral law. It's something the business wishes would happen, and that's nice, but it's like the rules for no running in the halls or no proper nouns in Scrabble. It's a made-up rule, not a moral law, and unless you agree distinctly to follow it (not "implied", no bait and switch, no "my seat my nonsensical rules" deal), then breaking it is morally newtrle.
Mucus: Oh, reasonable disclaimers apply and I'm not interested in beating the weeds, but in general, if you are labeling someone as dishonest, you are making a moral judgment about them. To say otherwise is absurd.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A business model does not have moral force. I do not consider the "no outside food" to be a moral law.
How very Chaotic Good of you!
I concur.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If the second but not the first, you're behaving immorally for not abiding the legitimate rules of a legitimate authority
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not accept that. The phrase "legitimate rules of a legitimate authority" is pretty vague anyways.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
katharina: I'm not familiar with that expression (beating the weeds). However, allow me to elaborate. On the contrary, I think that there are many situations in which one can lie and yet that is moral, especially (but not necessarily) if that is the expectation. In fact, I can think of a handful of tough situations in which it would be borderline immoral to not lie.
Keep in mind I believe it is obvious from context that TL intended/intends the label of dishonesty to be a moral judgement.
However, I do not think that it is absurd to make that distinction in general.
We may or may not be on the same page, but I just wanted to spell it out just in case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that's what I meant. There are situations when it is more moral to deceive, which may or may not be the same as being dishonest, but in general dishonest=immoral=bad.
Spending time examining the rare exceptions is what I meant by "beating the weeds."
I'm not sure where I heard that phrase, but it might, sadly, have something to do with golf, where someone could spend most of the day searching for lost balls in the weeds and not actually playing. They are on the course and they spent the day attempting to interact with a ball, but they didn't really play but instead spent the day "beating the weeds."
Heaven help me, I'm using golf metaphors. How very preppy of me. I swear I have never played, but everyone else in my family does. *sigh*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A business model does not have moral force.
So you don't also believe in the obligations of a guest to a host, for example?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Those are not in the same category.
And it's a manipulative post. It's like me saying "So you believe that rules for obtaining a rebate are inherently moral?"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Leaving aside the (interesting) questions of morality that have been being discussed, I've been thinking about alternative models that theaters could use to circumvent the problem. I mean, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, under the prevailing model, people are going to sneak food into theaters. What might be some ways to dissuade people from doing so? There is the model of the restaurant/theater that Enigmatic and a couple of other people have mentioned, but what else? Off the top of my head (and I'm not presenting all of these as good ideas, or even in all cases entirely serious ideas--they're just thoughts that occurred to me):
1. In addition to the ticket cost, 90% of which goes to the theater, include a $3.00 (or however much) fee of some sort that is mandatory. Allow outside food to be brought in, no questions asked, and price concessions reasonably. People are going to grouse about this one, regardless of how inexpensive the concessions are made to be. Chances are good that it'd drive down ticket sales.
2. When people buy a ticket, they have the option of buying a dining ticket or a non-dining ticket. Dining tickets cost several dollars more than non-dining tickets, but their bearers are welcome to eat either outside foods or present their dining ticket at the concession stand for "complimentery" popcorn and drink (or whatever). People will still game this sytem.
3. Charge a reasonable amount for concessions, but cultivate the idea that it's gauche not to give a 20% tip to concession stand employees. Require that concession stand workers put their tips in a communal pool, the lion's share of which is taken by the theater.
4. Continue to charge an arm and a leg for concessions, but provide more interesting, unique snacks. A thing of Reeces' peanut butter cups has a pretty solidly defined value; most grocery stores charge about the same amount for them. Convenience stores charge a little more, but not a whole lot. When a theater offers them at roughly six times the going rate, people are inevitably going to feel that they're being gouged. If they're offered a treat that is of higher quality, or is something that is unique to the theater, something that doesn't already carry an established value elsewhere in the theater-goer's experience, it is going to seem like much less of a rip-off. If the theater chooses to sell baked goods, make sure that the vents on the ovens are designed in such a way that the scent of baking cinnamon rolls and the like permeates the theaters themselves.
5. Lease space in the lobby of the theater to various fast food franchises. Make a food court of it, and let the theater make its money from the rent that the franchises pay for the use of the space.
6. Lower concession prices to something reasonable, and make up the lost revenue by instituting a theater lottery or raffle. Tickets cost just a dollar, and every showing/day/interval of your choosing some lucky winner gets, say, a voucher for a pair of tickets and snacks. If the prospect of tickets and snacks isn't alluring enough, expand it--in additon to the more modest prizes, all raffle tickets are entered in a monthly drawing for something big and shiny. People love lotteries.
What else? I'm sure there are other possibilities, serious or othewise.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
7. Set up a deal with prisons in which low risk prisoners, in additon to cleaning up our roadsides, can tear tickets and clean theaters. Prison labor=cheap! Lower labor costs = more profit for theaters! No need to charge an arm and a leg for treats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Those are not in the same category.
Why not? I'm seriously curious, even though it was a manipulative post. Are the categories different only because one is a business and the other isn't? And anyway, no it's not the same thing as if you'd said what you did about the rebate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't feel like talking about hospitality rules. I'm still pissed about the manipulative post and don't want to talk to you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: cultivate the idea that it's gauche not to give a 20% tip to concession stand employees.
You have just made a mortal enemy, Noemon. :pirate:
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Returning to an earlier example, about bringing your own wine into a nice restaurant -
This already happens in an above board fashion. The restaurants allow it, and simply charge a "corkage" fee to open and serve your wine, which makes up for their lost opportunity to sell you a marked up bottle of wine. (This is in Utah, no idea whether this is a custom peculiar to this state.)
Theaters could easily do this too. Charge an "outside food" fee, let people bring in what they want. I think this is very similar to alternative business model #2 listed above.
Yes, people will try to get around paying the surcharge. However, it does the following things:
1. Allows people to bring in the food of their preference, which might be worth a surcharge to them (or at least preferable to $5 popcorn).
2. Provides an opportunity to explain that the theater makes its money on concessions, or the outside food surcharge, and not on tickets. Enhances transparency.
3. The theater makes money for free. Lower overhead than concessions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by: fugu13 I am fairly confident that a theater allowing you to bring your own food could never operate in competition with one not allowing you to bring your own food and providing highly priced concessions. The ticket prices would (obviously) have to be substantially higher. People who are already used to going to a theater and not buying food or sneaking in their own would go to the cheaper theater and not buy or sneak in, and people used to buying food at the theater would go to the place where at least they get some food out of the price (on the whole).
About a year and a half ago the theater we always go to changed their no food policy to allow whatever you want. Once in a great while we'd get a slurpee from the concession stand, but only very rarely. After they changed the rule, we bought slurpees from the 7-11 next door, and sometimes from the nearby fast food places and went in. A lot of stuff just plain isn't easy to smuggle in. Stuffing a can of pop in your pants if they're baggy or in a friend's purse is one thing, but a McDonald's bag and a slurpee? I think the duffle bag you'd have to be bringing into the theater would look a bit suspicious.
Anyway, about six months ago the theater had another change. They changed their ticket prices to a two level system. Tickets Mon-Thurs are $4.75. Tickets Fri-Sun are $9. Prices before that for a matinee were $6.50 and for a night movie were $8.50. As a result, we see a lot more movies than before because we can bring in our own food and pay less if we see it during the week.
We use that theater almost exclusively. The only exception we make is when we go up town to the fancy theater with the seats that feel like a cloud and stadium style seating. That theater costs nearly $10 all the time, but it's a totally different experience. That theater actually has a special theater in it where all the seats are leather lazyboy recliners with little tables between them, and there's a gourmet buffet before and during the movie. Tickets for that are I think $18, which I think is totally worth it given the comfort level (it's reserved seating, you actually pick your seat when you get your ticket) and the high quality of the food. That particular screening room almost always sells out.
There are at least a dozen theaters by me within close driving range. All of them charge between $8.50 and $10 for first run movies on a weekend. Most of them charge around $5 or $6 for matinee prices. All of them charge outrageous prices for concessions, though even that varies, with the newer fancier theaters charging just a little bit more than the older theaters.
But unless it's a special movie, we always go to the theater with the free for all food policy and the better pricing, and we see a lot more movies than we would have otherwise. What they lose in high value of pricing, I think they are making up for in quantity. They've managed to stay in business with this practice for more than almost two years with extreme local competition.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: cultivate the idea that it's gauche not to give a 20% tip to concession stand employees.
You have just made a mortal enemy, Noemon. :pirate:
I specifically thought of you when I was writing that one, Porter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Laugh it up, fuzzball.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Noemon, one of our local theaters sort of does #5, and I like the idea. I think there is pizza (Pizza Hut?), Hardee's, TCBY, and some "Great New York [American?]" franchise famous for its crosscut fries(?).
Unfortunately, the regular employee crew seems to be responsible for staffing those registers as well, and as the theater seems to be having some problems lately (shortstaffed, erratic air conditioning, various things breaking down), often the shops aren't really available. Good if done right, though, I think.
[ July 28, 2008, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So you don't also believe in the obligations of a guest to a host, for example?
Do you believe that a business providing a service is acting as a host? Or that you, when you pay for the service, are a guest? Should I start charging people when I invite them to my house for tea?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You have people over for tea? I want to be invited over for scones!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, I do. Gloves and hats are optional.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have the hat already. I'll search for the appropriate gloves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't feel like talking about hospitality rules. I'm still pissed about the manipulative post and don't want to talk to you.
So you don't have an answer, then?
And given your incredibly rude though respectably blunt reply, allow me to reciprocate: am I supposed to be intimidated or something? Or feel a huge loss that you don't want to talk to me, in light of the way you announce it? Because I'm feeling neither.
-------------
quote:Do you believe that a business providing a service is acting as a host? Or that you, when you pay for the service, are a guest? Should I start charging people when I invite them to my house for tea?
I don't believe the roles are precisely equivalent, but some of the rights and responsibilities are similar.
Should you also be allowed to video movies on premiere night or sneak previews, then? Or bring in snacks and then sell them? Or stand on your seat?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't wish to converse with those who have so little respect for me that they want to manipulate me. It isn't fun and I don't believe you'd be speaking in good faith. *shrug* Feel however you want. The statement was meant to be informative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't wish to converse with those who have so little respect for me that they want to manipulate me. It isn't fun and I don't believe you'd be speaking in good faith. *shrug* Feel however you want. The statement was meant to be informative.
*snort* Just informative, right.
Thanks for the information.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Returning to an earlier example, about bringing your own wine into a nice restaurant -
This already happens in an above board fashion. The restaurants allow it, and simply charge a "corkage" fee to open and serve your wine, which makes up for their lost opportunity to sell you a marked up bottle of wine. (This is in Utah, no idea whether this is a custom peculiar to this state.)
Theaters could easily do this too. Charge an "outside food" fee, let people bring in what they want. I think this is very similar to alternative business model #2 listed above.
Yes, people will try to get around paying the surcharge. However, it does the following things:
1. Allows people to bring in the food of their preference, which might be worth a surcharge to them (or at least preferable to $5 popcorn).
2. Provides an opportunity to explain that the theater makes its money on concessions, or the outside food surcharge, and not on tickets. Enhances transparency.
3. The theater makes money for free. Lower overhead than concessions.
I would love that. I just don't like eating the junk that they sell.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I forgot to mention that the cost of new, plush, stadium-style theaters is probably the main driver for the concession rip off. If people didn't highly prefer the new generation of luxury in moviegoing, we'd have more old, flat, creaky, sticky theaters still in operation that could actually get by charging $2 for a small soda and popcorn (without challenging the status quo business model).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Rakeesh, your post struck me as more rhetorical than manipulative. For what it's worth. And my answer would be that it isn't a guest/host relationship at all. But then, I don't like eating during movies, so I just rip off the movies theaters in a completely moral and legitimate manner. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Rakeesh, your post struck me as more rhetorical than manipulative. For what it's worth.
To-may-to, to-mah-to. Everything said to another person is manipulative unless you are uninterested in getting a response.
Personally, I don't mind someone trying to direct me into a rhetorical "gotcha" as their ability to succeed at such an endeavor indicates that I have not thoroughly considered the implications of my reasoning or did not communicate it well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Those are not the only conclusions to be drawn from someone twisting your words and using manipulation in what was before a good faith discussion.
I'm not interested in those kinds of games or that kind of discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Those are not the only conclusions to be drawn from someone twisting your words and using manipulation in what was before a good faith discussion.
Yes, you're just interested in being informative.
I was and still am genuinely interested in discussing the similarities, if any, between the host-guest relationship and theater-patron relationship. I believe there are some similarities, as I've explained. Tom, at least, has actually replied with something other than, "*scowl-punch*I'm not talking to you."
THanks, Shigosei. It was meant, for what it's worth, in a rhetorically manipulative way. It wasn't much at all about a 'gotcha', as my way of expressing the similarities.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Wow, some really good ideas for alternative ways a theater can make money ended up in this thread. Cool.
quote:Keep in mind I believe it is obvious from context that TL intended/intends the label of dishonesty to be a moral judgement.
Assuming it is your intention, here, to correct my own posts, in which I have explicity stated that I do not intend it to be a moral judgement -- wow. Bad form. Please don't presume to correct or clarify my positions. I can do it on my own. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The movie theaters are trying to assert power they don't rightly possess, and that is the crux of my annoyance with them.
This is common in businesses today. Some stores argue that my entering their premises gives them the rights to search my bags because they have a small sign saying so on their entrance. I refuse to grant them that right, and wish everyone else would, too.
Even worse, places like Wal-Mart insist they have the right to hold me up at the exit of the store to go though items I have already paid for...in other words already own....despite the fact that I often am in a rush.
They have NO legal right to do so, but they often try to threaten people with the calling the police if their customers don't stop and let them paw though their bags.
I worked in retail for years, so I understand about shrink, but I also understand this.
They can call the police if they want, but if they do I will sue them silly. It is an unreasonable search, and as I have not stolen anything if they ARE dumb enough to try and physically stop me they will be found to have violated my rights.
They can ask to see it, but I have the right to say no. If they then believe I am thief, they can call the police....but if they are wrong then the consequences fall on their shoulders.
I just love the fact they try to browbeat you after you have given them your money. Talk about GREAT customer service, huh?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, don't give them money.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No...I just don't let them stop me. They can call the police if they want to, I could use the cash.
I am polite to them, and simply say "I don't have time to stop right now, sorry." and walk right past them. The only reason they get away with it is that most people are sheep, and don't know they are allowed to say no.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or know they are allowed to say no, and choose not to make an issue of it, particularly with kids in tow.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Rakeesh, I'd say Tom has a very good point that when you're in a theater you're a paying customer. I suppose that doesn't preclude you from being a guest as well, but it does change the dynamic. Also, there's generally not a personal connection between you and the theater as there would be with a host. It's not entirely fair to think of businesses as faceless entities that can't be hurt, of course, since actual people are generally hurt when a business suffers. On the other hand, the theater thinks of me as a statistic, not as an individual. What are the duties of a host to a guest, and does the theater perform them?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would totally pay a surcharge to be allowed to bring in my own food. They're not getting my money for food right now, but if they did that they'd get my money.
I would also probably go for a food court, assuming the food court prices were reasonably comparable to the prices of the same chain at other (normal) locations, not way inflated like at the airport or (sometimes) the mall. Subway in the movie theater would be teh awesome. I love a sandwich with my movie.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
To me the question is not a question of respect for host or customer, it is a simple question of private property rights.
Do you think that property owners have the right to establish rules, terms and conditions under which others may use their property? Is that right unlimited, or limited only to specific sorts of rules?
Should people feel a moral or ethical obligations to respect other peoples property rights?
For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
I own a house which I currently rent out. While I generally disagree with an expansive definition of property rights, I think it is absolutely within my rights as owner of the home to prohibit pets and smoking on the premise. I know from experience that those activities cost me money. If the renters are keeping pets or smoking in the house, they are cheating me. The price I agreed to when I rented the house was based on those restrictions. I would have charged more if I believed there would be pets in the house or smoking to cover the extra insurance costs and the extra damages that would likely be done to the house.
Now I agree that I do not have the right to make certain restrictions even though the property is mine. As a society we have agreed that I don't have the right to specify "no Blacks" or "no Jews" on the premise. I don't have the right to specify that the renters not say prayers in my house or not read PlayBoy in my house. Nonetheless, I think I do have some rights as owner of the house to restrict activities done in the house even by "paying customers".
So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
Not only does bringing your own food cut into the theater's or amusment park's business, it costs them at least a little. It costs them money to clean up after spilled pop and crumbs. It costs them money to pick up the litter and even to empty the trash cans. Certainly a part (even though its likely a very small part) of what you pay for when you buy the popcorn at the theater is the person who sweeps the theater. I can't see any reason why it isn't within their rights as property owners to prohibit outside food on their premises.
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
When we claim one person has certain "rights", it naturally implies a moral obligation on the part of others to respect that right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Yes, but not because they are rules, but because they are obligations of contract.
quote:Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
No, the failure to disclose would not be dishonest. But that person would be breaking their word by having the dog there at all - which itself is dishonest.
quote:So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
...
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
The question is whether the customers have agreed to it. And the means of communicating that restriction seems to be tiny signs plus some expectation that everyone knows that it's not allowed.
It might seem like a technicality, but we as a society have established a host of rules concerning whether a contract is created. Theaters - and business owners in general - use those rules constantly to avoid having contractual obligations when it suits them. Under those circumstances, I do not extend to them the far more generous interpretation of whether I've made a commitment to someone that I have for non-business relationships.
If they want to ask me to sign something saying I agree not to bring in food, I'll honor it. There are other ways of contract formation I might decide impose that obligation on me. But not as it exists at any theater I've been to.
The right they retain is to ask me to leave. They do not have the right to expect me to follow heir "rules" about what I eat.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To me the question is not a question of respect for host or customer, it is a simple question of private property rights.
Do you think that property owners have the right to establish rules, terms and conditions under which others may use their property? Is that right unlimited, or limited only to specific sorts of rules?
Should people feel a moral or ethical obligations to respect other peoples property rights?
For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
I own a house which I currently rent out. While I generally disagree with an expansive definition of property rights, I think it is absolutely within my rights as owner of the home to prohibit pets and smoking on the premise. I know from experience that those activities cost me money. If the renters are keeping pets or smoking in the house, they are cheating me. The price I agreed to when I rented the house was based on those restrictions. I would have charged more if I believed there would be pets in the house or smoking to cover the extra insurance costs and the extra damages that would likely be done to the house.
Now I agree that I do not have the right to make certain restrictions even though the property is mine. As a society we have agreed that I don't have the right to specify "no Blacks" or "no Jews" on the premise. I don't have the right to specify that the renters not say prayers in my house or not read PlayBoy in my house. Nonetheless, I think I do have some rights as owner of the house to restrict activities done in the house even by "paying customers".
So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
Not only does bringing your own food cut into the theater's or amusment park's business, it costs them at least a little. It costs them money to clean up after spilled pop and crumbs. It costs them money to pick up the litter and even to empty the trash cans. Certainly a part (even though its likely a very small part) of what you pay for when you buy the popcorn at the theater is the person who sweeps the theater. I can't see any reason why it isn't within their rights as property owners to prohibit outside food on their premises.
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
When we claim one person has certain "rights", it naturally implies a moral obligation on the part of others to respect that right.
This is a post I can absolutely agree with.
And, like kq, I would probably happily pay a small fee (up to about 5$, probably) to be able to eat and drink what I want in the theatre, even though I've already paid for it once. Using this business model, I bet they'd actually increase revenue. People who want popcorn and snacks will still buy it (and not have to pay the outside-food fee), and those who wouldn't buy food anyway will pay the fee. People will still try to sneak food in, but it would probably reduce the number at least somewhat.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:quote: For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules? Yes, but not because they are rules, but because they are obligations of contract.
So what you are saying is that if I were renting without a formal contract, they wouldn't have any ethical obligation to follow my no pets no smoking rule. They wouldn't have any moral obligation to tell me about the new puppy they moved into the house because it was just my rule and not a legally binding contract that they had signed.
Either I have certain "rights" as a private property owner to make rules about what is done on my property or I don't. Either you respect my rights or you don't. Whether we have made a legally binding contract is a side issue.
Does the property owner have an inherent right to restrict what customers can bring onto the premises or does this right only exist if established by legally binding contract? If the property owner has clearly communicated the terms under which he has agreed to allow you to use the property, how can you claim you have no ethical obligation to respect his property rights simply because a legal obligation has not yet been established?
In the many many cases in which there are no laws against lying, do you still have an moral obligation to be honest?
[ July 29, 2008, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what you are saying is that if I were renting without a formal contract, they wouldn't have any ethical obligation to follow my no pets no smoking rule.
You can't rent without a formal contract. Not all contracts are written. If you said, "No smoking and no pets, it's $1200 a month" and they said, "OK," then a formal contract exists. The bare minimum required to be communicated in most states is the address of the property and the rent (an amount per period). The law will fill in the rest, but if there is agreement on those points, a contract (technically, a leasehold, but "contract" is precise enough in this context) exists. It's not enforceable beyond month-to-month in most states, but it's still a contract.
And if you didn't say "no pets" before the finalization of the agreement, then you have no right to impose those rules.
quote:Either I have certain "rights" as a private property owner to make rules about what is done on my property or I don't. Either you respect my rights or you don't. Whether we have made a legally binding contract is a side issue.
Your rights in this regard don't extend beyond the parameters of the rental contract. The "rules" you establish are either part of the contract or not - and if they're not, then your trying to impose them is unethical.
Remember, a contract can exist without a signed piece of paper or even spoken words.
quote:If the property owner has clearly communicated the terms under which he has agreed to allow you to use the property, how can you claim you have no ethical obligation to respect his property rights simply because a legal obligation has not yet been established?
If he has clearly communicated those terms, and I have agreed to them (which could happen without any words, just by accepting the keys to the place after he says "no pets, $1200 a month"), then a contract exists.
quote:In the many many cases in which there are no laws against lying, do you still have an moral obligation to be honest?
Yes, as a cursory examination of my previous post would have shown.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
TL: I do not post to these forums for your approval of my "form." As for your post regarding dishonesty and whether you intended it as a label of moral judgement, let me simply echo Dagonee's words that I find it hard to believe that you made the distinction with a "straight face (or keyboard ...".
I think thats enough said on that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If he has clearly communicated those terms, and I have agreed to them (which could happen without any words, just by accepting the keys to the place after he says "no pets, $1200 a month"), then a contract exists.
Exactly how does that differ from a movie theater that says, $8 and no outside food? Wouldn't it be considered a contract just because you traded the $8 for the ticket?
Like I said, if you honestly didn't know there was no outside food, there would be nothing dishonest about taking it into the theater. But once you know, it is dishonest to keep sneaking it in. You have a right not to reveal the contents or your bag but you still have an ethical obligation not to have food in the bag if it is against the rules.
If my renter had never read or had perhaps forgotten the line in our contract saying "no pets" and got a new puppy -- it would be a breach of contract but not necessarily unethical. What I'd call an honest mistake. But once I pointed out the no pets policy in the contract, it would be unethical and dishonest for the renter to continue keeping the dog on the premises unless we modified our original contract.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wouldn't go so far as dishonest about sneaking it in, just impolite, if the theater has made such policy clearly known.
And I agree that doesn't give them a right to search bags. I do think it is fair warning about the potential for being kicked out if they see you doing it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Yes, as a cursory examination of my previous post would have shown.
Yes, I appreciate this about you. Perhaps thats one of the reasons I asked this rhetorical questions.
I'm told one should never ask a rhetorical question unless one also provides the answer. I should have followed that practice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In truth, I think the theaters probably hurt their profit by banning outside food. It's a policy that probably seems to be obvious to theater managers, since outside food competes with higher priced concessions food. But the question is: What sort of people are the people who sneak in food?
I would think that they are not splurgers. They are people who are worried enough about costs to bother sneaking in food. Therefore, I suspect their reaction to not being allowed to bring food will be either (1) to simply not eat anything in the theater at all, or (2) to stop going to the theater.
If "food sneakers" react to the ban by no longer attending the theater, rather than buying concessions instead, then the theater loses money on the ban.
My guess is the most profitable approach is to have a "no outside food" rule, but then never bother to enforce it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
A contract never has to specify everything that might be prohibited. For example, my rental contracts don't stipulate that the tenants can't burn rubbish in the living room, fill the basement with water for use as a swimming pool, knock out the walls, or raise wolverines in the basement. Yet I presume I would be within my rights to evict them for many lesser offenses even if we had only a verbal contract of "no smoking or pets, $1200 a month."
At what point does something become so widely accepted as reasonable behavior that it no longer needs to be explicitly stated in a contract?
I'm not claiming that the "no outside food rule" meets such a requirement. If it did, there certainly wouldn't be so many people argue that breaking the rule is fine. But there are theater rules that would meet the requirement. For example, if someone stood up in the middle of theater, began screaming and refused to stop -- I'd expect them to be escorted out even though no rule was posted prohibiting this behavior.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A contract never has to specify everything that might be prohibited. For example, my rental contracts don't stipulate that the tenants can't burn rubbish in the living room, fill the basement with water for use as a swimming pool, knock out the walls, or raise wolverines in the basement. Yet I presume I would be within my rights to evict them for many lesser offenses even if we had only a verbal contract of "no smoking or pets, $1200 a month."
If they are destroying property, sure. Having pets or smoking does not automatically imply the destruction of property.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...raise wolverines in the basement.
I've been found! How did you know? Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If they are destroying property, sure. Having pets or smoking does not automatically imply the destruction of property.
I think you missed the point. A rental contract is normally presumed to permit people to do certain things in a house and not all of what is allowed or prohibited must be explicitly stated in the contract, much of it is presumed. Since Smoking and keeping pets are things many people normally do in their home, it is necessary for a contract to specifically prohibit these things. But if a contract had to list all the possible things people might do on the premises that would be unacceptable, it would be on infinite length.
"What do you mean that I can't raise wolverines in the basement, the contract says I can't have dogs, cats or other domesticated mammals it says nothing about wolverines?"
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
[Calvin] I *LOVE* loopholes! [/Calvin]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think you missed the point
No, I get the point and I think I answered it. Unless specified otherwise in the contract, no legal activity is implicitly forbidden or grounds for eviction. If you damage property, you are liable for that damage.
quote:"What do you mean that I can't raise wolverines in the basement, the contract says I can't have dogs, cats or other domesticated mammals it says nothing about wolverines?"
You'd probably go to court to determine whether a wolverine in your basement constitutes a "domesticated mammal". The landlord could also attempt to make a case for damage to the property by the wolverine. If, however, the wolverine is legal to own in that municipality, no damage could be demonstrated, and it's determined to not be a "domesticated mammal", then the tenant stays.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Matt, I think there are exceptions to that. For example, if the contract states the house is rented for "residential use", I could evict tenants for running a business out of the house even if the business was legal. At least in the area where I rent, I don't have to explicitly state that business use is prohibited, that is considered outside the scope of a "residential use".
Furthermore, its nearly irrelevant since most communities have some very broad laws which along with neighborhood covenants that allow me to evict a tenant for keeping too many junk cars in front of the house or failing to cut the lawn enough, even if those aren't stipulated specifically in the ordinance.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:For example, if the contract states the house is rented for "residential use", I could evict tenants for running a business out of the house even if the business was legal.
Right. That's covered by the "Unless specified otherwise in the contract..." part of my post. Matters of interpreting the contract ("residential" = "no businesses", "wolverine" = "domesticated mammal") are a separate issue from what is permitted absent any restrictive language in the contract.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Furthermore, its nearly irrelevant since most communities have some very broad laws which along with neighborhood covenants that allow me to evict a tenant for keeping too many junk cars in front of the house or failing to cut the lawn enough, even if those aren't stipulated specifically in the ordinance.
That varies by state. In some states (like California), it is exceedingly difficult to evict a tenant.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In most states you would have to prove the PRIMARY use of the house was business and not residential to evict them. There are some exceptions.....childcare business for instance....but if they have a home office for selling items on ebay (just as an example) it would not invalidate their rights as tenants.
Unless such activities are specifically restricted/prohibited in the rental agreement, of course.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So, Dagonee, are you saying that a private property owner, running a business has no (legal) say in what can or can not cross their threshold?
For the sake of my point below, I'm assuming that the "No Food" sign is clearly visible before you enter the business. I have seen such postings in a mall also, where someone might have food from the food court but they don't want messy food coming into the store.
I understand the "no private search" point that you are making. But, doesn't any store or private venue, have the legal right to tell you to keep food out of it? You don't want a toddler spilling red koolaid in an art gallery for example, even if you could hold the parents liable for damages, you still might lose an irreplacable (is it irreplacable or unreplacable or non-replaceble or none of the above?) work of art.
To me, (and I'm not a lawyer) if they actually have this legal right, it *doesn't* matter whether they are selling food inside their property, or some other ware. Because it is their property, they have the right to control what crosses their threshold. You might have to also pay for the priveledge of crossing their threshold (think art gallery, where you have to pay for admission sometimes in order to have the priveledge of seeing the paintings offered for sale) but it still seems that they have the right to control what goes over their threshold.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, Dagonee, are you saying that a private property owner, running a business has no (legal) say in what can or can not cross their threshold?
Not at all. In fact, I've explicitly stated the opposite multiple times now. In fact, I've explicitly stated that theaters have the right to exclude outside food.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ok... I missed it... so you agree with their right, but not with the overall reason why they do it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with their right. I disagree that the way theaters currently implement their ban creates a moral obligation not to bring food in.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ahh so your problem is actually with the execution, of the right, not the right itself?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. My objection is to the idea that a business's policies creates moral obligations in others to follow those policies as a general matter.
Those policies can create moral obligations, but something other than their mere existence and publication is required. For example, a request to leave coupled with a ticket refund creates a moral obligation to leave in most circumstances. So does agreement with the policy during contract formation. In each case, something beyond a statement of the policy is needed to create that obligation.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: The theater loses an opportunity to take advantage of a market it has worked to create. I can see two parallels to this type of business situation. First is the use of loss leaders in retail stores. Best Buy (for example) will heavily advertise cheap merchandise (DVDs, electronics) that are below normal prices. They make little to no profit on these items but by having them for sale, they bring customers into their stores which leads to increased sales of other merchandise which is not marked down and does turn a profit for the store. There is no deception in the fact that the rest of Best Buy's stock is not as cheap as the specific merchandise they advertised. Nor is the customer obligated to purchase other items in order to offset the store's loss on the discounted items. The store has just created a favorable position for itself by getting more people to walk in. It also takes the risk that the customers buying the discounted items will not buy anything else. That's just a business decision to be made. What would be the equivalent of cheating (to bring this around to the movie theater example) is if another electronics/DVD/CD vendor had set up shop within Best Buy to take advantage of the market (customers in the store, intending to spend money) that Best Buy had worked to create buy sacrificing profits on a few items. (On a side note, simply because some people on buy on sale and others do not, it is not unfair to those who do not buy on sale, even if it is the profits from their purchases that pay for the discounts on other purchases. Everyone has the same opportunities and makes their own decisions.)
I think your analogy fails. A person can buy sale items at Best Buy and then go to another store to buy the other items they want. If Best Buy marks some items down to bring in customers and then marks up other items to compensate, people don't have to buy those other items or go without. They can simply go to a store that offers lower prices.
I worked at Best Buy for awhile as well as a grocery store, a tourist shop, Target, Barnes & Noble and as a manager with two video store chains, so I have pretty extensive experience in retail.
The thing about movie theaters in contrast to these other outlets is that the movie theater doesn't make any money on it's primary service/product.
The video stores made money on video rentals (granted, they made a much higher percentage on concessions) but they also offered new movies for sale at cost or even for a small loss. They did this, as has been pointed out, to entice customers who were looking to buy movies, as opposed to rent them, to still visit the store. While there, they might also rent a film or purchase a gift card or candy.
So a retailer (video, grocery, electronics, etc. store) will offer products that have small to no profit margins to encourage customers to buy more overall at their establishment. However, in most cases, these products are not the sole primary service/product offered.
In the movie theater's case, it's primary service/product provides them with little to no revenue. To make up for this they radically inflate the prices of their concessions.
I think the idea of fair value for concessions would carry some weight in a legal setting were customers to try to take action in a way other than sneaking in their own food. I'm fairly confident none of the theater owners would ever want that to happen, whether they would win or not. But despite the regular complaints I'm sure theater workers receive from customers, I've not heard of anything like that being discussed among movie-goers.
Personally, I just never buy any concessions.
I liked some of the alternative business models Noemon posted. The thing is, movie theaters are competing not just against other things to do, but video stores, Netflix, etc., especially as home theaters become more affordable (even just the impending switch to all HD broadcasts will improve the overall standard of the basic home television).
I think if the economy continues to struggle we may see some alternative business models begin to be implemented in theater chains (as well as other retail chains in general).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
One of my points above is that theaters are hardly the only venue who seem to think their policies override their patron's rights, simply because they say it does.
I would not sneak into a movie, but I don't have an issue with taking my own food into a movie.
There was a really good theater chain that opened up in MI just as I moved away....I forget the chain name though, I just remember it was great in 1988. They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in. I don't CARE what They say I am buying...all I am paying for is the movie.
Paying for that is more than a lot of people do these days. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I would not sneak into a movie, but I don't have an issue with taking my own food into a movie.
Even if the theater says, "We ask that you don't eat outside food in our theaters," without having any sort of enforcement that overrides an individual's rights against unlawful searches?
Frankly that baffles the hell out of me. Why do you have some sort of right to eat whatever you like while renting their seat, if you when you rent it you're agreeing not to do so?
And despite not having big clear signs up, everyone is agreeing not to. That's why we sneak food into movie theaters, and don't bring a cooler.
quote:I don't CARE what They say I am buying...all I am paying for is the movie.
Paying for that is more than a lot of people do these days. [Smile]
The movie you pay to watch doesn't get up there by magic. And what does the second sentence have to do with anything?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in.
Wait--are we talking about communion wafers here, or are we talking about ambrosia (and if it's the latter, do they have nectar on tap)?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"Silly rabbit, God is for kids!"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:even just the impending switch to all HD broadcasts will improve the overall standard of the basic home television
Just a nitpick, but it's all digital, not all HD.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wanted to comment on something back on the beginning of the first page but got caught up in the movie theater thing. I thought Samp's post on little white lies was interesting. On one hand, I wonder what life would be like if literally no one lied and we always told the truth 100% of the time. I use lies that have no real consequence all the time, like when someone asks me if something bothers me and I say no when it does to be polite, or I lie if someone asks me if I want to do something and I say no but fudge the reason why. Lies like that are like grease on the skids of life. I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful, though the only specific instances I can think of involve romantic relationships and how lies can actually lead to a lot of disappointment and pain down the road. But I consider that a separate category.
Read "The Truth Machine" by James L Halperin.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I hated when I went to a concert (base price of all tickets in excess of $100), and everyone was thoroughly searched on the way in (for food). My dad had to throw away the (disposable) plastic water bottle that he regularly reused for tap water. They cited "safety" reasons.
So why oh why didn't they find the pot that the people in front of us smoked during the concert? That certainly wrecked the show for me.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:even just the impending switch to all HD broadcasts will improve the overall standard of the basic home television
Just a nitpick, but it's all digital, not all HD.
I do love a good, fresh picked nit...
They taste better than movie theater popcorn.
[edited for wit]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in.
Wait--are we talking about communion wafers here, or are we talking about ambrosia (and if it's the latter, do they have nectar on tap)?
LOL.....darn typo's, and the people who catch them....
Rakeesh, this conversation has talked about the difference between eating food you bring in and simply walking in without paying, as well as what constitutes theft. I was simply saying where the line is drawn for me on this subject.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Even if the theater says, "We ask that you don't eat outside food in our theaters," without having any sort of enforcement that overrides an individual's rights against unlawful searches?
Actually, if the sign says, "We ask..." then it's a mere request, not an element of an agreement.
quote:And despite not having big clear signs up, everyone is agreeing not to.
Moreover, knowing that this is a theater's preference is NOT the same as agreeing to it - especially when theaters very often do not enforce their preference.
quote: That's why we sneak food into movie theaters, and don't bring a cooler.
Actually, as I've already said at least once, I carry food openly into theaters quite often. I usually carry stuff in they don't sell there, and often that's something with chocolate or ice cream in it. Pockets + ice cream sandwich = teh suxorz.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Mucus, if you have a history of calling fellow hatrackers liars when they tell you what they were thinking when they wrote a certain thing, or when they attempt to clarify a certain point they'd gotten across a little wrong-headedly at first -- I'm not aware of it. Or at least I wasn't aware of it until now.
I guess I now have a better idea of what to expect from you, and I will adjust my future interactions with you accordingly.
You don't know what's in my head, and your insistence that I mean what you say I mean, rather than what I say I mean, is just absolutely infuriating... You may consider me to have been successfully trolled. Let's move on with our lives. Good job.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I looked up a description of "Chaotic Good" and I emphatically agree with it. I try to be good, but I don't consider Other People's Rules to create a moral obligation in me. I'll decide if they are good and follow accordingly.
I probably "get away" with a lot as a result, but this does come back to bite me. Mostly because I disagree with parking tickets. The City of Alexandria is harsh. Texas is not. Then again, this is the state that came up with $2000 traffic tickets. Friggin avaricious nanny state.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, OK then Dag, "By purchasing this ticket you agree to...", let's say that sign is up there. I do agree that if the sign says 'request' or 'ask' or something, it's not the same.
I missed where you said you carry food openly into theaters, my mistake. But I think you'll have to agree that you're in a very small minority in that area.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wanted to comment on something back on the beginning of the first page but got caught up in the movie theater thing. I thought Samp's post on little white lies was interesting. On one hand, I wonder what life would be like if literally no one lied and we always told the truth 100% of the time. I use lies that have no real consequence all the time, like when someone asks me if something bothers me and I say no when it does to be polite, or I lie if someone asks me if I want to do something and I say no but fudge the reason why. Lies like that are like grease on the skids of life. I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful, though the only specific instances I can think of involve romantic relationships and how lies can actually lead to a lot of disappointment and pain down the road. But I consider that a separate category.
Read "The Truth Machine" by James L Halperin.
I just finished reading "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. He tried for a year to live literally every single commandment and teaching of the Bible. It drove his wife crazy when he had to be completely honest all the time. He couldn't tell "white lies" to their toddler anymore to get him to do what they wanted, had to tell the complete truth, and the toddler would go into a meltdown. When new friends said they ought to go out sometime, and he had no intention of going, he had to say so and made everyone feel awkward.
I had no idea how much I lied until I read that book.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
TL, you never explained how you intended it to be taken. Most people consider lying to be immoral so most people will be offended if you call them a liar. This is especially true when you use an unconventional definition of dishonesty (namely, that you can be dishonest without entering into a verbal or written agreement).
Furthermore, your posts seemed hostile towards not just the idea of sneaking food into theaters but also towards people who do so.
Ex:
quote:It goes without saying, I'm sure -- but sneaking in food to movie theaters has basically the same effect as shoplifting; the business has to charge everyone else more to offset the cost of your dishonesty.
I always get aggravated when this subject comes up, because people just flat-out, with no evidence to the contrary, simply refuse to believe the truth. Or they choose to deny it so they can continue to keep up the self-justification.
You did point out that there are exceptions where dishonesty is not necessarily bad but you didn't comment on whether or not those exceptions applied to sneaking food into movie theaters. That would have been an easy way to clear up this nonsense.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
I went to a theater tonight and there was a big sign directly over the ticket counter that said "outside food and drink not allowed in theater." (Also, tickets at this theater are usually $2. Tuesdays is dollar night.)
From what I've read, your position is purely based on your own experience, in which the sign is not posted so that it can be seen before you purchase your tickets. What would your take on this theater be?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
TL: I'm a little lost. If it is indeed your assertion that there is nothing immoral about a label of dishonesty, then you seem to be rather upset about me even implying to someone else that you may have believed something other than what you wrote. Especially, if you consider that I explicitly said "intended/intends" which perfectly covers you changing your mind or being "wrong-headedly."
Also, keep in mind that I have noted early in the thread that I agree with the general notion that "most people are generally liars" and have noted many examples of perfectly moral lying. I think I can accurately label 90%+ of Hatrackers as liars. (and this is not a moral judgment )
However, if playing the victim and considering yourself as being trolled gives you personal satisfaction, far be it for me to take that from you.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No. My objection is to the idea that a business's policies creates moral obligations in others to follow those policies as a general matter.
Those policies can create moral obligations, but something other than their mere existence and publication is required. For example, a request to leave coupled with a ticket refund creates a moral obligation to leave in most circumstances. So does agreement with the policy during contract formation. In each case, something beyond a statement of the policy is needed to create that obligation.
I don't quite get it. If the law gives businesses the right to control the bringing of food on their premises, and the business chooses to exercise that right, and clearly state that outside food is not allowed on the premises, then if you bring outside food into that business, you are breaking the law. If they attempt a private search, then they are breaking the law too. But if the food is openly visible then they have no need to conduct said search in order to determine that you are breaking the law.
To me, the moral obligation is not to break the law. I'm not Chaotic Good, because even though I do speed, I feel guilty about doing so.
Dagonee, I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm missing some nuance of what you are saying, I don't mean to be dense. Please tell me where the flaw is in my train of argument, because my brain is out of practice with these sorts of conversations.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No. My objection is to the idea that a business's policies creates moral obligations in others to follow those policies as a general matter.
Those policies can create moral obligations, but something other than their mere existence and publication is required. For example, a request to leave coupled with a ticket refund creates a moral obligation to leave in most circumstances. So does agreement with the policy during contract formation. In each case, something beyond a statement of the policy is needed to create that obligation.
I don't quite get it. If the law gives businesses the right to control the bringing of food on their premises, and the business chooses to exercise that right, and clearly state that outside food is not allowed on the premises, then if you bring outside food into that business, you are breaking the law. If they attempt a private search, then they are breaking the law too. But if the food is openly visible then they have no need to conduct said search in order to determine that you are breaking the law.
To me, the moral obligation is not to break the law. I'm not Chaotic Good, because even though I do speed, I feel guilty about doing so.
Dagonee, I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm missing some nuance of what you are saying, I don't mean to be dense. Please tell me where the flaw is in my train of argument, because my brain is out of practice with these sorts of conversations.
Bringing food into a business which prohibits such action via a policy which they are allowed to enforce legally is NOT the same thing as breaking a law.
I'm trying to think of an analogy...having a hard time. I give up.
The businesses' rights are about choosing to do business with people and permitting a use of their property. Those rights are not "laws" which can be broken.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Threads, your point is well-taken. I consider the act of intentionally sneaking food into a movie theater when you know it is not permitted to be an innate act of dishonesty, in and of itself, with no other qualifiers; it is simply a dishonest act.
I am neutral, and always have been, on the question of the morality of this activity. I never intended to make any moral judgements, and was surprised when the topic came up -- simply because morality, as an issue, wasn't on my mind at the time of my ranting, and it still isn't.
I did come at the topic with too much passion in the beginning, but that doesn't mean I said anything that I now think is untrue. Just that I didn't probably say it with very much tact. For example, "self-justification" was probably the wrong hyphenate. At the time I wrote that, I did not suspect that the issue of whether or not the act was dishonest would be the subject of controversy; I assumed we would all agree that it was.... I don't suppose that you must necessarily self-justify an act you don't consider to be dishonest.
Mucus, it does not provide me with a sense of personal satisfation to "play the victim"; when one feels that they have been victimized, one rarely feels good about it. Your refusal to accept any meaning other than the one you imagine is not a failing on my part, nor does it represent a changing of my position. I am doing my best to engage, clarify, converse; sometimes I don't communicate the shades of meaning I intend, and so I reserve the right to explain myself later on. I think everyone hits against this issue from time-to-time, and it works better if we give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the law gives businesses the right to control the bringing of food on their premises, and the business chooses to exercise that right, and clearly state that outside food is not allowed on the premises, then if you bring outside food into that business, you are breaking the law.
Actually, this is simply not true. One is usually not "breaking the law" by violating a sign posted by a private party (there are some exceptions). Failing to leave when asked is usually breaking the law, whether there was a sign up or not. Of course, if there wasn't a sign, making a person leave might be a breach of contract, which I wouldn't characterize as breaking the law, either.
quote:Dagonee, I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm missing some nuance of what you are saying, I don't mean to be dense. Please tell me where the flaw is in my train of argument, because my brain is out of practice with these sorts of conversations.
I'm pretty sure it's not you - I think I've left out a crucial step somewhere (really, just assumed it), and I don't know quite how to clarify at this point.
It's related to a question of moral dominion. A person visiting a private place incurs moral obligations to follow the host's rules. In some sense, the host's wishes create a moral dominion over the guest. This dominion extends pretty far.
The same is true of businesses who open to the public. But the extent of that dominion is significantly less than the moral dominion extended over guests to private homes.
One common dominion is the right of exclusion. With few exceptions, one has a moral obligation to leave another's property upon request of that other. This gives a business a means to enforce its wishes that are not part of the moral dominion it extends. But that's different than creating a moral obligation in the visitor not act against those desires.
The formation of a contract - and here, I mean a legally binding promise, whether written or not - can also extend one's moral obligations. In general, I think it's wrong to take advantage of "loopholes" in the law that allow one to break a promise with no legal repercussions. But, when dealing with a business - especially one represented by counsel - the ground rules of mutual expectation are those technicalities surrounding contract formation. In fact, many businesses get away with things consumers consider wrong because of those ground rules. That's the playing field, and I use those rules as a guideline for deciding whether the moral dominion has been extended.
Note that this whole argument assumes that there is a moral dominion that exists to visitors to businesses that is not created by action of law. A small example: it's still wrong to lie to a business, even if that lie does not amount to actionable fraud.
I'm aware I've left undefined the idea of moral dominion and haven't justified the reason for the difference. Just realize I haven't attempted to do either in this post. If I can think of a way to express it later, I will. In the meantime, I'm aware of the impact this has on how convincing my argument is.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
TL, to be honest Mucas hasn't really seemed to go after you. You two may disagree, but that is fine.
I honestly thought that you WERE discussing morality, as questioning peoples honesty is in and of itself a moral judgment most of the time. I understand your clarifications, and as we have not had any bad exchanges in the past I don't have any issues with them....we have all tried to clarify position before, and it is hard to do so without looking like a flip-flopper.
Just ask John Kerry.
But you also didn't call me out specifically. I am far more likely to listen to your arguments now, while we discuss things rationally, than I was at the beginning of the thread when you came across angry, confrontational and judgmental.
BannaOJ, just because someone has a right to exclude something within the framework of the law doesn't mean refusing to follow their wishes against the law. They may have the right to ask you to leave, and will be within their rights to do so, but bringing the food in is not against the law, merely against their wishes. There is no law saying "No food".
That is one of the significant differences between the movie example and retail companies insisting they have the right to check your receipts at the door as you leave. There IS a law regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The way they get around this is to challenge people directly, and most people allow them to do it. By allowing them you waive your rights, and no law has been broken.
If you keep walking and they physically stop you (which has happened to me twice) then they HAVE broken a law....perhaps more than one. As long as you are NOT a thief they are screwed. I asked for the police the last time, and then filed a police report against the store, because of course they found I had payed for everything.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dagonee, I need to re-read your post a couple more times, but what you clarified definitely helps me see where you are coming from. I don't know whether I agree or not yet, but it helped.
On the search and seizure thing. I was mulling over Costco. Since it is a private membership-only club, do you waive your right when you join? Admittedly they *only* check the stuff in your cart, and it is always for additions rather than ommissions, but that seems like it might be a fuzzier line on the search and seizure thing too.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Try breezing by the person checking your stuff at Costco, see what happens. I'll bet they'll notice and try to get you to stop, but won't physically restrain you. Do it frequently enough and they might decide they don't want you as a member anymore and stop letting you go inside the store. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since it is a private membership-only club, do you waive your right when you join?
When I joined up at a similar store, my contract specified agreeing to the receipt check/search at the door.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It would completely depend on the membership agreement you signed. But even so, refusing to allow them to do so isn't breaking the law. It COULD be a violation of the membership agreement, but their only recourse at that point would be to either call the police...and if they are wrong they are screwed....or revoke their membership.
I don't have an issue with BJ's or CostCo doing it as I agreed to it when I joined...but even then I have a finite amount of time I am willing to wait.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Try breezing by the person checking your stuff at Costco, see what happens. I'll bet they'll notice and try to get you to stop, but won't physically restrain you. Do it frequently enough and they might decide they don't want you as a member anymore and stop letting you go inside the store.
On multiple occasions Best Buy customers have been physically restrained for refusing to show their receipt.
There was another recent case where the police actually came to the scene and, as I recall, arrested the shopper for also refusing to show ID to the police, but I'm having trouble googling that one right now.
As a retail manager, trust me...this could complicate things, but you do NOT have to stop. None of the stores want you to know that though.
Once the police are there I would produce my ID, because the reason I need them there is to verify both that I was stopped without cause and to verify the contents of my bag to prove that I didn't steal anything.
I will need that statement from the police officer as evidence for my police report, and for my court case.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That is some interesting reading, MattP. All the sources seem to be in agreement that bag checks are voluntary and detaining someone solely for refusing to comply with the bag check is illegal (according also with what Kwea says).
Mayhaps I'll try to exercise my right to leave without a search one of these days. It'll have to be at a time when I'm feeling less stress generally, though, as it looks like it can turn into quite a circus.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
It's not true everywhere that the merchant can't search your belongings. I used to live near Idaho, and when we went to the mall across the state line (in Idaho) there were signs to the effect that the merchant (or his agent) could detain you if the suspected you had shoplifted. I searched Google and found the relevant section of Idaho state law
quote: 48-704. AUTHORIZED ACTIONS OF MERCHANTS. (a) Any merchant may request a person on his premises to place or keep in full view any merchandise such person may have removed, or which the merchant has reason to believe he may have removed, from its place of display or elsewhere, whether for examination, purchase or for any other purpose. No merchant shall be criminally or civilly liable on account of having made such a request.
This gives the merchant the right to search through your stuff to make sure it isn't stolen.
quote: (b) Any merchant who has reason to believe that merchandise has been taken by a person in violation of this act and that he can recover such merchandise by taking such a person into custody and detaining him may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for the purpose of informing a peace officer of the circumstances of such detention, take the person into custody and detain him, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time.
And this gives them the right to hold you if they suspect you.
I always wondered if these laws held up constitutionally, but they are still laws in that state.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
(a) doesn't say that the customer has to comply with the request. (b) only applies when the merchant has "reason to believe" (which I bet has to be something akin to "probable cause") that the person has stolen something. Refusal to comply with the request doesn't give rise to a reason to believe that shoplifting has occurred.
My big objection to receipt checking is that, if mandatory, it allows a store to detain you (not letting you leave until the receipt is checked) AFTER you have already taken ownership of your goods.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I don't mind having the cart checked at Costco, because I agreed to that when I joined.
I do mind everywhere else and I regret now I ever used to let people stop me. Of course now I'm older and probably look less thiefish so no one does stop me anyway.
I never buy food at the theatre. Too expensive. I used to bring it in, in my pockets, and justified it by (1) knowing I was *never* going to buy it no matter what and (2) not leaving any trash.
Which brings me to question how many food-bringers really never buy food vs. would buy it if the alternative was hunger? Because on those people, failing to enforce a no-outside-food rule *would* result in the theatre losing money.
Furthermore, anyone who brings in outside food and leaves a crumb of it on the floor is making them pay people to clean up after them, so that's pretty lame.
Of course I also wonder if movie patrons weren't such slobs if they could save enough on cleaning staff to lower the cost of the food somewhat. Perhaps all along its the moviegoer's fault stuff is so expensive; they are the ones leaving their trash and spilling their popcorn!
As an aside, I HATE it when people come in to clean the theatre for the next showing and the movie isn't over. The credits are part of the movie. Sometimes there is even another scene after the credits. I don't appreciate the noise and distraction. I feel much more ripped off by that than by the $4.50 Junior Mints.
I wouldn't mind a dining/nondining ticket to openly bring in food, while it would only cost me, since I don't leave a mess anyway, it would fairly compensate for the cleanup the theatre has to perform.
I personally don't take food at all anymore, I just learned to do without it. Apart from candy the food they serve there isn't stuff I would want to eat anyway.
I do dislike the "cheap ticket to get them in, then hike up the prices once they're here" mentality. I hate surcharges and stuff because they're always dishonest. Just tell me the real price! It's an attempt to make people think things are cheaper than they are. It's just leverage, and I hate it.
Can you imagine if other businesses tried what movie theatres do though? Supposed Microsoft sold their Office software for $10 per CD, and after you paid for it, informed you that you could only use Microsoft Tech Support, which cost $50 per call. You can do without tech support, if you want, but if you get into trouble you can't get a local computer repair guy or ask your neighbor's son that knows all about computers, no. That is Outside Tech Support and is Forbidden...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know that 'reason to believe' has been interpreted, at least in the policies of many stores, to mean 'saw someone take it off the shelf and then physically leave the store with it, never letting him or her out of sight'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know that 'reason to believe' has been interpreted, at least in the policies of many stores, to mean 'saw someone take it off the shelf and then physically leave the store with it, never letting him or her out of sight'.
That's well beyond probable cause. It doesn't surprise me that some (maybe even most) stores have a policy that errs on the side of searching fewer customers than they legally could.
I wonder what the constitutionality of a law that authorized detention or search on less than probable cause would be? It would be an interesting research problem.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Furthermore, anyone who brings in outside food and leaves a crumb of it on the floor is making them pay people to clean up after them, so that's pretty lame.
I worked at a theater for several years and the staff that clean the theaters are very efficient. The presence of outside food was rarely a significant factor in clean-up time. One messy patron with a official movie theater tub of popcorn could create a lot more mess than the family that brought in Subway sandwiches.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
<tangent> I got fooled on the Dark Knight thread (fie upon ye pranksters) and thought there was a stinger at the end of the movie so I was staying through the end. Apparently at this theater the cleanup crew has been instructed to stand to the side and wait until all the patrons are out before cleaning up - but it didn't help much. They talked and even announced loudly that "there's nothing after the credits" and then audibly made fun of the few of us who stayed to the end of the credits as we were walking out. It was pretty harmless, not to the level of something I felt the need to talk to the manager about, but still, I'd have preferred them to be working, quietly cleaning up, instead of loitering and talking and not working. </tangent>
On the subject of escalating receipt checks or requests to check bags into detention: I think the problem is as much with people that enjoy petty tyranny as it is with store policies. It's clear from some of the stories MattP and manji linked above that door watchers sometimes get off on power trips.
I see this all the time in ostensibly customer service-oriented positions: company reps who think the company's policies bestow some kind of prestige and power upon them, the Grand Peons who get to tell the customer "no" or "this is what you have to do." It baffles me sometimes that the mid-level management fosters and reinforces the little tyrannies of customer support in many cases - my point of view is that if you want to deal with a customer, you should never, ever be less than polite. And if you don't want to deal with a customer, cut the interaction off. Don't deal with them. Don't make an attempt to lord it over them, with the magic words of "policy" and "process" and, worst, "fair."
The weirdest thing, IMO, is how reluctant businesses are to say "no, because we won't make any money that way." Why is it a secret that they are trying to make money, and the reason they can't/won't do what the customer wants is because it's too costly? I think honest answers like that would be far preferable to pointing out "our policy is that we can't accept returns after 30 days, even though you didn't open the package."
</rant>
And yes, I know my parenthetical HTML is poorly formed and doesn't conform to any specification. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If the company does detain you because of suspected shoplifting, you CAN sue for damages in civil court as they have just slandered you by accusing you of theft. I doubt that state law would hold up, to be honest, as a person's individual rights take precedence.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: (Also, tickets at this theater are usually $2. Tuesdays is dollar night.)
$2??? No wonder they have to rely on food profits.
Tickets here are usually around $14-$16. Cheap tickets are about $9.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I work at an insurance brokerage firm that does benefits for large corporations. One of our clients is going through a dependent audit which means they're verifying that everybody that's claimed as a dependent on the medical plan is eligible to claimed as a dependent. It is amazing to me how blatantly people lie. We found several hundred false dependents. Several people claimed non-dependent relatives (such as cousins) or friends as being their children. One man even claimed his mother as his spouse. We discovered that over the past 18 months, these people have cost the company over a million dollars in medical claims. How people can justify that amazes me.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I do dislike the "cheap ticket to get them in, then hike up the prices once they're here" mentality. I hate surcharges and stuff because they're always dishonest. Just tell me the real price! It's an attempt to make people think things are cheaper than they are. It's just leverage, and I hate it.
Well... but... did you understand that the studios take a percentage of every ticket sold, close to 90%? So there is no way -- there is no existing mechanism -- by which a movie theater could charge enough for the ticket to cover the costs of its operation. If a movie theater has to bring in $3.00 per customer to continue to operate, they would have to charge $30.00 for a ticket that actually covered the cost of providing the service to that customer.
Would everyone rather see movie theaters charging $30.00 for a ticket, or $4.00 for a large drink and $6.00 for a large popcorn, with everyone having the option to choose which products they want to buy, if any?
I suspect almost everyone would choose, under this scenario (which is the current reality), to let the theater sell the optional-but-expensive snacks, rather than $30.00 tickets.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Assuming they're non-elective, medical claims can be pretty easy to justify Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I was once detained for roughly 15-20 minutes at a local redneck Wal-Mart for stealing knives. There were at least 4-5 cops in the room, repeatedly telling me to confess, and telling me it would go easier if I did. They said they had me on videotape stealing the knives. I emptied my pockets. No knives. I let them search my car. No knives. I didn't steal the knives. I'm not even sure any knives got stolen that day. Their sole "evidence" was that a Wal-mart employee had seen me in the bathroom supposedly disposing of the knife cases. My toothbrush and toothbrush case fall out of my pants pocket as I am using the bathroom, and the guy decides that's a knife case? Whatever. Wal-mart went to Hades when the old man died, and his daughter is doing her level best to totally crap it up.
When did local sherriff's deputies start providing store security, anyway?
On an unrelated note, I got the Forsyth County deputies kicked out of their security jobs at Forsyth Tech for taking my student ID and making me leave campus. They did it because they didn't recognize me. Seriously, we've got some extra-dumb cops around here, it seems to me. LOL
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally think business people will make up unlimited numbers of arbitrary self-serving customer-ripping-off rules if we let them. Customers who follow those rules just encourage them to make more. I completely support people who sneak food in to avoid paying exorbitant prices for cheap unhealthy junk food in parks, festivals, and theaters.
Our local music festival this year had the double policies of no pass outs, and no food or even water allowed to be brought in. This combined with the level of fare available inside, and the prices of both the entry tickets and the concessions, left me feeling completely ripped off. I'll never go again.
The first rule of capitalism is don't make your customers angry. Business managers are not being capitalists by sticking to their silly rules, they're just being foolish. I expect they'll follow the long tradition of companies who anger their customers and then go out of business. That's what makes capitalism great... all the poorly run companies end up going out of business. That's the only reason we have scores of excellent businesses to choose from in our society. It's harsh but it works. =)
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:my point of view is that if you want to deal with a customer, you should never, ever be less than polite. And if you don't want to deal with a customer, cut the interaction off.
And if you are answering phones in a customer service call center, how exactly do you "cut the interaction off" without being less than polite? Hanging up on customers is severely frowned upon, both by the managers and the angry customers who call back a second later.
--Enigmatic
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Get a different job.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:I do dislike the "cheap ticket to get them in, then hike up the prices once they're here" mentality. I hate surcharges and stuff because they're always dishonest. Just tell me the real price! It's an attempt to make people think things are cheaper than they are. It's just leverage, and I hate it.
Well... but... did you understand that the studios take a percentage of every ticket sold, close to 90%? So there is no way -- there is no existing mechanism -- by which a movie theater could charge enough for the ticket to cover the costs of its operation. If a movie theater has to bring in $3.00 per customer to continue to operate, they would have to charge $30.00 for a ticket that actually covered the cost of providing the service to that customer.
Would everyone rather see movie theaters charging $30.00 for a ticket, or $4.00 for a large drink and $6.00 for a large popcorn, with everyone having the option to choose which products they want to buy, if any?
I suspect almost everyone would choose, under this scenario (which is the current reality), to let the theater sell the optional-but-expensive snacks, rather than $30.00 tickets.
That's just ridiculous. Studios can't make money unless theaters show their movies. They should renegotiate the entire structure of ticket sales and what percentage they get. I think it's fair that they get a big percentage of sales, but I think there should be a cut off point at which they stop collecting, and every dollar charged over that cutoff point goes to the theater. Then they will be free to raise rates as they see fit in order to get what they need to make a profit without ripping people off at the concession stand.
They should all band together and change the way it's structured. What are studios going to do about it, not let ALL the theaters show their movies?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, because that wouldn't be a huge potential violation of anti-trust law.
Not to mention, think about that cost structure for a second. If the amount of money studios can make on a movie is capped at a much lower level than before, there's no incentive to make movies that make more than that.
Why on earth would studios agree to a pricing structure that guarantees the only movies they have that make a lot of money can't make a lot of money? Why on earth would theaters argue for a pricing structure that gets rid of the blockbusters they sell the most concessions during in exchange for a cut of higher revenue the studios have little incentive to create?
Your idea would be disastrous for the movie industry. While not all pricing structures that win out competitively are optimal, there are often simple, logical reasons for them that are surprisingly hard to overcome with other approaches.
Especially when you see things requiring collective action, where even a single dissenter would have a huge advantage over the collective. Imagine if all theater chains make this offer. A theater chain that agreed to go without a cap could probably get a slightly higher percentage of total sales, and if the other theater chains continued to hold out, they'd have a hard time getting blockbusters (the movie studios would probably give them to them a bit later).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The percentage that the movie theatres take changes the longer the run is. The first weekend, they get 5% of the money brought in. By the time it is the eight weekend, they are getting maybe 20%.
This is part of why movie studios are gearing everything towards the big opening weekend. It makes a difference to the studio if a movie take one week or five weeks to earn 100 million dollars - if it is one week, they get almost all the money. If it is five weeks, then not even close.
Less than 10% of movie patrons buy concessions. The REAL source of revenue for movie theatres are the ADS. Which I hate. That's part of my lack of sympathy - they didn't ask me if they could sell my eyeballs to the local car salesman. I am not going to get their permission to bring in a box of candy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
fugu -
Charging $11 for a ticket instead of $9, for example would be disastrous for the movie industry?
You're going to have to elaborate on that one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, I'm not sure what way it would be an advantage for consumers to have to pay $2 more for tickets. If the point is a better situation for consumers, why would we want theaters to charge more, unless people like the resulting situation at least as much more as they're paying?
Second, you're completely ignoring what I pointed out about the structure of the incentives. If movie studios cannot make more than $X per film (only so many theaters to show it, a cap on how much each theater will give them), where's the incentive to make movies that make more money? Theaters certainly seem to view the blockbuster movies as big profit opportunities: they're who're driving things like midnight showings. Why on earth would theaters band together to implement a pricing structure that makes movie studios less likely to make blockbusters?
Heck, you ignored several other points. I'll take a look later and see if you've responded to any of them.
edit: I might have misunderstood, you might have meant a cutoff point per ticket. As for that, I suspect the sum total of change you would see in how movie theaters price tickets is . . . around $0, overall. Movie theaters are setting ticket prices to be competitive with other movie theaters and available sources of recreation, in order to draw people in to eat their food and view their ads. If a theater decided to, say, charge a little more and forgo those sources of revenue, I suspect they would see a significant drop in revenue, because that's pretty much how it works in every industry. In some markets there are probably niches for theaters that have fewer ads/charge more for tickets, but they won't be large enough for most movie theaters.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes I did, because I have no idea how they are applicable to my idea. Currently if a theater charges $10 for a movie, $9 of that goes to the studio. I'm saying cap the amount they take a cut from at $10, and allow the theater to charge another dollar or two that only they get. Studios don't lose a penny, and theaters get more money.
If you want to try that again, I'll take a look later.
Edit to add (to address your editing): The theater I go to locally has the cheapest price around for a first run movie, and they allow outside food and drink. I was at the theater this past weekend with a friend of mine who used to work there. When she stopped to talk to the manager for a minute, I jumped in and asked what sort of drop off they'd had in sales since they changed their prices and allowed outside food, and the manager said they're actually making a bit more now, but that it's hard to tell if that is because of the change in policy or because of this year's crop of movies. So take it with a grain of salt I guess, but the current business model isn't necessarily the best.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See my edit above. The increased costs to consumers point in my post immediately above is also quite relevant. Also, you didn't deal with it being an antitrust violation to try to do that collectively (and the reason we have antitrust laws is to protect consumers against actions that reduce competition in the marketplace, such as things that would raise rates to no particular advantage to consumers -- if theaters all did it successfully, then they could still show ads and forbid food, while charging more, and the only ones who would be better off would be the theaters).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See where I said exactly that the existing business model isn't necessarily the best, but is often harder to work around than it seems. Note that the theater you mentioned is still paying the same percentage for each show.
If I could ask a question, I'd ask about attendance. I suspect they're seeing more attendance because they're cheaper, now (both up front and effectively, with the food thing). Now imagine every theater in the area adopted the same prices and policies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, that's related to the low price guarantee phenomenon. There's a simple game one can look at, where there are two kinds of people: some always go where the price is lowest (equally to all places with the lowest price), and some go to a place at random. If there are two stores in competition, each can (effectively) choose to offer a normal price, or a low price. If both offer the low price, they make very little money. If both offer the normal price, they both make a decent bit more money. If one offers the low price and one offers the normal price, the one offering the low price makes a lot of money, and the one offering the normal price makes more money than they would if both offered the lower price, and less money than they would if both offered the normal price.
More complex versions of that game have been found to be good explanations for the 'low price guarantee' phenomenon. If a store can cement in people's minds that they'll always be the lower cost place, then they can make a lot of money, and other stores will have no incentive to try to compete on price . . . because the best they can do, assuming the 'low cost guarantee' place stays low cost, is make less money than they are charging more normal prices.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the theaters can charge more at the door to make up for concession costs and ads, then there will be a theater out there that can charge reasonable prices for their concessions and show movies without ads, which customers will find appealing and they could choose to frequent that establishment over the one with the jacked up prices and the annoying slew of ads before the movie.
It changes the competition, it doesn't eliminate it.
I think without surveying each moviegoer to ask about why they went to any specific theater, you'll never get a straight answer to most of these questions just by looking at sales. There's no way to tell if they stop going to the theater just because the movies suck or because of theater related factors.
Personally I don't have much of a stake in this, as I love my theater and their policies. It's not the nicest theater in town, for that I have to pay twice as much and forgo the snacks, but it's good enough, and it's a great deal. But I imagine some day when I no longer have access to that theater I'm going to grumble a lot about regular theaters, and I don't think the current scheme is fair to everyone. I guess it works, otherwise all the theaters would close down, but I still think it's stupid.
As far as the pricing goes, I think you might be overvaluing the effect of a dollar here or there for most people. Chances are if my local theater starts charging a dollar more because they get to keep that dollar from everyone, I'm not going to jump ship and go elsewhere because that involves driving an extra five or six miles. It's convenience as much as anything. If they really jack the price up and are the only ones to do so, yeah, that'd effect my choices, though it might be mitigated by a corresponding drop in concession stand pricing. People take a rise or drop of a dollar or so pretty much in stride for a movie ticket. Someone on here said they regularly pay something like $14 for a movie ticket, which is outrageous around here, but if you're used to something in the ballpark of that figure, you grin and bear it. Never in my life have I had a conversation with anyone I've been to a movie with where we decided to go somewhere else because it was 50 cents or a dollar cheaper if the places were equidistant and the concessions were cheaper at the higher priced ticket place.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That's a point.
I guess you'd have to call me converted ... if the choice is to have high concession prices or raise ticket prices, I'll take the high concession prices. I can deal with going to the movies and just not eating for a few hours. But if they raise ticket prices enough, they might not even get me through the door at all. When they're competing with better and better home-movie systems, I guess they've got to make it relatively cheap to get us through the door. Then there's always the chance that we might spend more once we're in there (but I don't, we never buy snacks, so they're certainly not getting their money's worth off of me). I guess that's the gamble they have to take to stay in business. It would work better if their offerings were more tempting.
Ticket prices have already gone up so much in the last few years that I only go to the movies about 2-3 times a year anyway, and we only take the whole family maybe once a year - or less. But there are still some movies that just have to be seen on the big screen, so I hope they can find a way to keep the theaters open.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:my point of view is that if you want to deal with a customer, you should never, ever be less than polite. And if you don't want to deal with a customer, cut the interaction off.
And if you are answering phones in a customer service call center, how exactly do you "cut the interaction off" without being less than polite? Hanging up on customers is severely frowned upon, both by the managers and the angry customers who call back a second later.
--Enigmatic
I think you missed my point entirely. Obviously you can't cut off a conversation without being impolite. I'm saying that you make a decision: do I want this customer or not? IF you want them, you stay polite. If you don't want them (and this can become evident as a customer becomes unreasonable or too costly) then, drop any pretense of wanting them as a customer. This may be impolite, but it should be clear: we're not going to work this out to your satisfaction, so goodbye.
What I object to is the notion that you can rudely insist on policy and procedure to the evident displeasure of the customer and still call it "customer service." If you can't do what the customer wants, tell them and move on quickly. I don't object to responding to customers in kind when a customer is rude and obnoxious. Just be up front about it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
If anybody sees me here in the next couple hours, please glare at me and ask how the packing and data tables are going. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I specifically thought of you when I was writing that one, Porter.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)