Tiered movie ticket pricing isn’t “undemocratic,” but it is a royal pain in the ass
The outcries about AMC’s new “Preferred Sightline” pricing have largely focused on a perceived threat to the egalitarian nature of moviegoing, when in reality the bigger issue is its inconvenience
Based on the disproportionate amount of media attention given to AMC Theatres’ new tiered “Sightline” pricing, which rolled out this week in three test markets (New York, Kansas City, and Chicago), you’d think that people were going to the movies in droves right now. Rarely does a development in movie exhibition receive this much (negative) publicity outside of the bubble of “Film Twitter,” as it’s affectionately referred to by its participants. Even Jimmy Fallon had a joke about the initiative in his Tonight Show monologue last night.
The great irony of this attention, of course, is that many in the thunderous chorus decrying the multiplex chain’s new pricing scheme haven’t been to the movies very much lately. The domestic box office has still not recovered from its pandemic-induced struggles; as of this week, 2023 grosses are -31% off their 2020 levels. Others who are more active moviegoers largely belong to AMC’s A-List subscription program and will not be affected by the change, which charges non-subscribers a slightly different admission fee for prime showtimes depending on which seat they select (the best “sightlines” in the house are $1-2 extra).
I’ll grant you that many of those crying foul probably went to see Avatar: The Way of Water, and based on the number of people who forked over an additional $3-12 to see James Cameron’s epic sequel in 3D and PLF formats, we can’t pretend as though consumers were enormously price-sensitive in that outing. Without calling anybody out by name, I have to wonder if those who have blasted AMC’s new pricing scheme as “undemocratic” and “anti-moviegoer” feel the same way about the standard surcharges for IMAX, Dolby Cinema, and 3D across chains. These formats offer experiences that often more closely reproduce what the filmmaker wants viewers to see/hear in exchange for an upcharge. Have we really reached the point in our discourse where depriving these consumers of the “full experience” because they can’t afford the luxury can somehow be credibly critiqued as capitalist greed?
That all being said, while I don’t think cash-strapped movie exhibitors have any more of a moral obligation to provide “fair and equitable” pricing than the egg farmers currently grappling with a devastating Avian flu, I do think “Sightlines at AMC” is a mindbogglingly stupid initiative. Yes, I am very aware that tiered cinema pricing works in many other Western countries, including the UK where it is fairly commonplace. And yes, I will even grant that this initiative represents little more than a scaled-up version of what several U.S. chains were already doing in offering different seating amenities at different price-points at certain locations, such as the Cinemark Playa Vista and the iPic Westwood in Los Angeles. But if implemented on a national scale, as planned, Sightlines at AMC promises to be the latest illustration that most major exhibitors do not understand the single biggest threat to regular moviegoing: the perception of being a hassle.
Let me tell you why I think the “convenience factor” of moviegoing should be exhibitors’ main concern in 2023 and moving forward, now that health-related pandemic concerns are largely behind us. When we think about the box office now, versus pre-pandemic, where does the difference in revenue come from? Sure, there are some people – skewing older, progressive, and female – who simply don’t want to sit for extended periods of time in public places anymore. They’re the same people you see still wearing cloth masks outdoors on walks in the neighborhood. We’re never getting them back (to a theater or to reality), and they’re ultimately a small fraction of the moviegoing marketplace. But largely, the revenue gap exists because the average moviegoer is seeing fewer movies.
This dip is generally not due to highly avid moviegoers like myself, who saw everything pre-pandemic and who are still seeing everything now. Any decline in moviegoing among this group stems from a reduction in the number of wide releases available, especially outside of the big cities, which should correct itself once we hit this year’s summer movie season. The dip is also not driven by rare/occasional moviegoers who only see event movies – they’re still seeing the same five superhero releases a year that they saw in 2019, hence Marvel’s resiliency.
Rather, recent moviegoing declines seem to be largely driven by what I will here call “semi-frequent” moviegoers, those who go to the movies somewhere between once every two weeks and once a month. There are a huge number who used to belong to this group, but who are now “event moviegoers.” And make no mistake: while this was a trend rapidly accelerated by the pandemic, which gave people an opportunity to reevaluate their habits, it was already in-process well before “Covid” entered our collective vocabulary. Think of all the older-skewing couples you know who used to have Saturday “date nights” at the movies a couple of times a month, who now only rarely go. Think of all the teenagers today who never go to the movies together on Friday nights at all, and compare that to the teenagers of the ’80s, ’90s, and ’00s. Think of all the families who would regularly attend together, but who now opt for afternoons in with Disney+.
If movie theaters are going to thrive in the future, they need these semi-frequent moviegoers to be the bread-and-butter of their business models. While event moviegoers may spend more per visit (on concessions, ticket surcharges, etc.) because they attend less frequently, you don’t have to be an Econ major to realize that someone who goes to the movies 25 times a year is more valuable to exhibitors than someone who goes just five times a year. Whereas event moviegoers are driven to the cinema solely by the force of a particular release, semi-frequent moviegoers attend out of habit, predictability, comfort. They go to the theater at a regular interval and simply see the movie that interests them the most among those currently playing. They’re looking for the movie theater to provide them relaxation, dependability, and peace.
And yet, over the last decade, the country’s major exhibitors have seemingly done everything they can to make moviegoing more of a complicated process, designed to cater to event moviegoers rather than semi-frequent moviegoers. Exhibitors retrofitted thousands of cinemas with recliner seating, which is nice and comfortable if you’re reserving a ticket for the opening night of a Marvel movie three weeks in advance. But it’s less ideal if you’re trying to catch a Saturday matinee of a two-week old release that happens to be uncomfortably crowded or sold out when you walk up because there are now only 45 seats in the auditorium. Exhibitors invested heavily in IMAX and other PLF auditoriums, from Dolby Cinema to ScreenX, which is great if you are looking to see the latest and greatest VFX with the best presentation possible. But it’s less ideal if you’re looking for an affordable ticket price for an ordinary movie outing. Exhibitors leaned into dine-in experiences and front-lobby bars and expanded concessions menus, which offer delightfully unhealthy treats if you’re cool dropping $40 per person on snacks because you only go to the movies five times a year. But it’s less ideal if you’re attending after your weekly dinner date and you just want a Coke and Peanut M&Ms, but now you have to put up with a concession line that’s backed up with dozens of Impossible Nuggets orders, or (even worse) waitstaff interrupting your film experience by taking the nugget orders during the movie.
The point is, these developments have all been touted as “advances” in the moviegoing experience, when in reality they’re just inconveniences for the regular, ordinary moviegoers who want the multiplex to be their biweekly oasis. In many major markets, no longer can one reliably walk up to the theater box office five minutes before showtime without purchasing their ticket online and still secure a decent seat, breeze through a concession line to acquire the basic essentials in a couple minutes, and expect consistently good projection in a non-PLF auditorium. All it takes is a few bad experiences to kill the buzz for a semi-frequent moviegoer, as they’re not the diehard cinephiles who need to see everything no matter what. And by catering chiefly to their less avid counterparts, exhibitors have killed a lot of buzzes in recent years.
I get it: exhibitors see that event moviegoers make up the largest share of total patrons and they think they have to cater to them, without considering the more valuable people they lose in the process. They commission market research studies that tell them that consumers expect comfy oversized seating, without considering the practical ramifications of tiny “sellout” crowds. They look at other industries, like the airlines, and try to replicate what has helped them increase profit margins during turbulent times (no pun intended). But moviegoing is and always has been its own unique organism, and you get the sense that in a market now powered by beer sales and meme stocks, only a few family-owned chains still understand what’s actually special about the product.
Which brings me back to Sightline at AMC. When we think about inconveniences that will turn off semi-frequent moviegoers, this is just another one of them. Keep in mind, the most frequent moviegoers (myself included) don’t really view this initiative as an obstacle because the surcharges for the “good seats” are waived through the AMC A-List program, which you almost certainly subscribe to if you see multiple movies a week (and if you don’t, you should). And for all event moviegoers may complain about a $1-2 upcharge for good seats on social media, they’ll almost certainly pay the piper. But for a semi-frequent moviegoer who doesn’t attend quite regularly enough to justify an A-List subscription, they’re either going to have to shell out a premium ticket price habitually or remember to buy in advance in order to secure a decent seat at no extra charge. Keep in mind, standard ticket prices have already reached absurd levels relative to quality of experience, both because exhibitors are cash-strapped and because of their apparent decision to force moviegoers to either sign up for a subscription program or to become infrequent “event” moviegoers.
But the biggest possible inconvenience of this program isn’t even monetary. It’s the potential for abuse. In an apparently unsuccessful effort to thwart bad PR, AMC has also decided to offer several seats – largely in the front couple rows – at a $1-2 discount off the regular price. Given there will almost certainly be no ushers actively policing the seating, I am confident that many patrons will try to buy these discounted seats and then move elsewhere in the auditorium. So prepare to reach your assigned seat and find someone else sitting in it (already a fairly common occurrence for me), and cue the awkward conversation where you have to tell them to move. And if I know multiplex patrons (I do), I know that a fair number will arrive half an hour late, find someone else in their seat, and then distract everyone else in the auditorium by asking the interloper to move while the film is playing. Again, if you’re not a cinema diehard, and you could easily pick up a different habit or hobby, only a few instances of this could easily make you conclude that regular moviegoing isn’t worth it.
This is all to say, we’re increasingly finding ourselves in a moviegoing climate in which exhibitors do not seem to care about the most activatable potential audience for non-“event” movies. The big chains, especially AMC, are consistently pricing their product as though it is a “premium experience,” but in practice, it is getting worse for the dependable share of moviegoers who don’t want all the bells and whistles. Step into any AMC location without an A-List subscription or the mobile app for advanced purchases, and you’re likely to find yourself paying dramatically more for a ticket than you did a decade ago, with longer lines at the concession stand at peak hours. And unless you shell out for a PLF experience, you will often get subpar projection on top of it. In the last few months alone, I’ve seen presentations with dim bulbs, shoddy focus, no screen masking to speak of, low volume, etc.
Why would an ordinary moviegoer who is more habit-driven than title-driven put up with all of this? To then be charged extra for the ability to sit in the center of the auditorium, after already enduring the aforementioned inconveniences, might just be enough to make you swear off multiplex moviegoing for good. This is something that everyone who wants to see cinemas prosper in the future should care about, regardless of their personal level of moviegoing avidity, as these patrons are the key to keeping the projectors humming and the popcorn popping for years to come.