Timeline for Why do low-budget films charge the same amount at the box office as super-high budget films?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 15, 2016 at 13:48 | comment | added | user6983 | Just like to say that sometimes, high budget films cost more to see at the cinema than low budget films (or ones not expecting the same amount of people). For instance, at my local cinema (one of the Vue ones in the UK), a ticket for Star Wars VII cost me more to see than the Good Dinosaur (though there were only 25 minutes of adverts before SW7, compared to 30+ for Good Dinosaur). | |
Jan 15, 2016 at 7:57 | vote | accept | JSideris | ||
Jan 15, 2016 at 7:55 | vote | accept | JSideris | ||
Jan 15, 2016 at 7:57 | |||||
Jan 15, 2016 at 7:33 | comment | added | Jan Fabry | The Planet Money podcast covered a related question last summer: why are the prices not set by demand, so why do blockbusters sell for the same price as a bomb? I think the answer was signaling: you don't want to be the cheap discount movie. | |
Jan 15, 2016 at 5:59 | answer | added | Diego Mendes | timeline score: 0 | |
Jan 15, 2016 at 0:35 | answer | added | Steve Jessop | timeline score: 3 | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 21:56 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | Only for margins where that production cost is a factor. If your competitors sell chocolate bars for 50c, and you can cut the cost of making and distributing your chocolate bars from to 49c each to 41c each, that creates the option of selling at 45c, undercutting your competitors while keeping a narrow profit per unit. But the one-time cost to a film company of making a film is not a factor in the per-unit cost to a cinema of providing one seat in one theatre for one screening months later. | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | Peteris | @Bizorke if you know that in saturated, competitive market something particular should happen, and you observe that it is actually not happening in practice, then you simply have evidence that the competition between movies (and movie studios) and ticket pricing is not like a saturated competitive commodity market. Just as many other markets, e.g. fashionable sneakers. | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 19:36 | comment | added | JSideris | @user568458 But in a saturated, competitive market suppliers can compete by lowering their prices. A reduction in production cost means they can do so without reducing margins. Are you saying this intuition incorrect more times than not? I don't have the numbers - this is just my expectation. | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 19:02 | comment | added | Giskard | @Bizorke It is possible that 90% of the proceeds go to the studio yet it is still the theather that sets prices. You may be right, but it would surprise me because then different studios should try to undercut each other's price all the time. | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 18:34 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 |
"In most occurrences, lower production costs translate into lower sales costs" - really? Production costs influence the minimum viable price at which a product can be profitable, and the viability of a competitor joining the market; but supply and demand drive the actual cost. When the production cost of $150 fashionable sneakers drops from $1.20 per unit to $0.80 per unit, that doesn't stop the price going up...
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 at 17:57 | comment | added | JSideris | @denesp I heard otherwise. My understanding is that most of the box office price goes to the film producers. Theaters make most of their money from concessions (unverified source). | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 16:38 | history | edited | BKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited tags
|
Jan 14, 2016 at 16:36 | answer | added | BKay | timeline score: 17 | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 16:35 | comment | added | Giskard | I am pretty sure that it is not the film producers but the theathers that set the ticket prices. Despite this the question is still valid. | |
Jan 14, 2016 at 16:23 | history | asked | JSideris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |