FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Are people generally liars? (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Are people generally liars?
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Starsnuffer
Member
Member # 8116

 - posted      Profile for Starsnuffer   Email Starsnuffer         Edit/Delete Post 
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)

Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Saephon
Member
Member # 9623

 - posted      Profile for Saephon   Email Saephon         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Miro
Member
Member # 1178

 - posted      Profile for Miro   Email Miro         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DanWard
New Member
Member # 11699

 - posted      Profile for DanWard   Email DanWard         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DanWard
New Member
Member # 11699

 - posted      Profile for DanWard   Email DanWard         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
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." [Wink]
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
If you were to smuggle a wine-bottle into a restaurant, would you be dishonest?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
A "generally known" rule absolutely does not count.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Wink]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
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.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ...

This is very related to the ideas of saving face:
http://tinyurl.com/56uk2b
and polite lies
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polite_lie

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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JennaDean
Member
Member # 8816

 - posted      Profile for JennaDean   Email JennaDean         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2