posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would consider that completely different from the issue involving theatres.
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. . .
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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." Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, nobody ever said taking outside food into a theater was the same thing as stealing.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Any chance you could show me where I implied it was your fault that movie theaters make money from snack sales???![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.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. 
