Money-back guarantee offered for 'Cinderella Man'
 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - In a rare marketing ploy, the No. 2 U.S. movie theater chain, AMC Entertainment, is offering a money-back guarantee for boxing picture "Cinderella Man," hoping to boost interest in the struggling film amid a record box-office slump.

Advertisements offering on-the-spot refunds to AMC patrons unhappy with the film began running on June 24 in newspapers and on the exhibitor's Web site (www.amctheaters.com), AMC spokeswoman Pam Blase said on Tuesday.

The ads, welcomed by the film's distributor, Universal Pictures, say in part: "AMC believes Cinderella Man is one of the finest motion pictures of the year!"

Blase said AMC provides occasional rebates to dissatisfied moviegoers on a case-by-case basis. But the "Cinderella Man" offer marks the exhibitor's first money-back guarantee since "Mystic Pizza," Julia Robert's breakout 1988 film.

"This is highly unusual," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracking service Exhibitor Relations Inc. "That's putting your money where your mouth is."

The AMC promotion is perhaps the most eye-catching step taken by exhibitors in recent weeks to shake up sluggish movie admissions, which some industry observers have attributed in part to a string of films widely regarded as subpar.

The major studios and theater owners have now posted 18 straight weekends of year-to-year declines in ticket sales, the longest slump since analysts began keeping detailed box office tallies.

"If there's a question about the quality of movies that are being shown right now, here is a movie that AMC would like to really tout as very high caliber," Blase said.

Starring Russell Crowe as the Depression-era boxing hero Jim Braddock, "Cinderella Man" has received generally favorable reviews but fallen flat at the box office.

The movie, which cost a reported $88 million to make, opened in fourth place the weekend of June 3-5 and has grossed a lackluster $49.8 million through its fourth weekend.

Executives at Universal, a unit of General Electric Co., have acknowledged they took a gamble releasing a period drama aimed at adult moviegoers early in a summer movie season awash in high-octane popcorn fare targeting younger audiences.

Conventional wisdom holds that such films have a better chance in mid- to late-summer, when older filmgoers are looking for a break from blockbusters.

"We took a risk, and this time period clearly didn't work," Universal spokesman Paul Pflug told Reuters, adding that the studio is considering re-releasing the picture in the fall, closer to Oscar season.

Blase said the AMC has not decided how much longer to keep "Cinderella Man" in theaters, a decision that Universal said was up to individual exhibitors at this point.

The number of refunds requested since the promotion began has been "minuscule," but no figures were yet available, Blase said. Nor was there any way to tell whether admissions to "Cinderella Man" have risen since the offer began, she said.

The AMC promotion comes days after the privately held exhibitor announced plans to acquire its next-largest rival, Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corp. The newly merged venture will remain the No. 2 U.S. theater chain with about 5,900 movie screens in 450 venues.

I read this today and said that this reeks of desperation.

On another note - I found this quote to be the most interesting part of the article:

The major studios and theater owners have now posted 18 straight weekends of year-to-year declines in ticket sales, the longest slump since analysts began keeping detailed box office tallies.

I'm wondering if people out there are smartning up and going the DVD Home Theater route, rather than dish out $11 for a ticket, $7 for food and sit through 20 minutes of trailers/commercials in an uncomfortable seat with annoying people.

Sounds good. I could use a free ticket to see Cinderella Man. ;)

I don't mind ^THE20 as it gives me time to theater hop. ;) $10 a ticket means I'm watching minimum 2 movies that day and bringing food and drink with me.

That's still not enough to get me to watch it. Maybe if they toss in a hot fudge sundae.

actually they do this for any movie if you really complain enough. just bitch about the air condition, you'll get your money back

I'm surprised that in a year where there is Batman, Star Wars, and a big Steven Speilberg movie they're still talking about a slump.

Personally the whole theatre experiance isn't worth the money. The only time I go to a movie is if I can get in for free. I have friends that know the manager of a local theatre and he always lets us in. If I had to pay I just wouldn't go.

Back on topic, I'm actually very interested in seeing Cinderella Man. I really think I would enjoy it and the money back guarentee is nice. But I'll still wait for the DVD.

you wouldn't have paid to see Batman, Star Wars, and a big Steven Speilberg movie? personally, i love the theater experience. the picture quality is better in terms of color, detail, contrast. and it's one of the few remaining communal experiences left. admittedly, i've been spoiled by the Arclight's dedication to providing the best possible experience -- reserved stadium seating, limited trailers, no ads, dlp, huge seats, 21+ screenings, etc. i'm happy to pay the $14 admission.

I completely agree. The arclight is a great theater, but even a regular theater is a good experience (well, as long as the sound is good!). I've never really had the awful experiences some people seem to have all the time, and quite frankly the home theater experience lacks one thing that I love about the cinema...an audience. Sure, some people can't stand the chatter or cell phones (which I never see much of really...maybe one time per showing) but you don't get that great vibe, the cheering and laughing that you get with a packed house.

What is funny about this year though...box office slump and all...is that our biggest blockbusters this year have been extremely well reviewed and well, good. But hey quality doesn't always equal more money.

I have never understtod why theater chains do not offer more variable pricing for shows. I am not talking about matinee/evening pricing but it could be included in the model.

It would include several of the following:

1. rather its blockbuster/tent pole movie
2. time of the day
3. length of time since initial release
4. previous attendance

The theater has already been bulit so there is capacity available. Excluding labor cost, the cost to operate the theater is fixed whether 10 people or a 100 people are watching a screening.

My thing is would they rather have 10 people paying $7 or 20 people paying something less. Yes, I know that they could get 10 people instead of 20 at something less. But now they are getting diminishing returns - higher prices and lower attendance. Why not try lower (variable) prices and possible higher attendance.

Damn, and I hated Mystic Pizza. Nobody offered me my money back. :(

i have every expectation that the large corporations running these movie theater chains have some grasp of economics.

that said, i don't want to imagine how the public would warm up to variable pricing.

would east coasters get in cheaper because they're the 'first to see' the new movie premiere? would you really think the public would react favorably to star wars being priced at 20 bucks a ticket while the perfect man is only 2$?

they already do a lot of the other stuff, 2nd run theaters are cheaper and obviously matinee is cheaper.

but the masses are in some ways pretty smart. and they'd see right away any attempt to charge more for star wars than for the perfect man just because of what the movie is as something incredibly greedy.

omg, i can't even imagine the bad press it'd bring.

FWIW, I thought Cinderella Man was a well made movie, but it had no business coming out in the summertime. It had Fall movie writ large all ove it, why they did what they did is beyond me. If they wanted it to do well in the summer, it would have been best to do what they did with Seabiscuit and released it towards the end of the season so it could maintain for a few weeks when nothing major was competing.

yup, they really did drop the ball on the release of it and now are reaching for any ability to cash in on it. This just smells of begging. Oh well, decent flick. Lets see if it atleast gets some nods come oscar time.

AMC probably figures they will pull in enough in concessions to more than make up for the people who will demand their money back. Plus I'm guessing they'll make it a mild pain in the butt to get your money back. Probably fill out some form or something.

I remember our Carmike had this deal for a few movies in the past. Batteries Not Included was one.

Drop the ball is a bad phrase to use. Universal did their best to sell the film. People just weren't interested. It happens all the time.

The film will find its audience eventually. Good films always do.

:wave: ...wants his money back for Mystic Pizza.

Their best would have been to hold off on the summer release and push it towards a late summer, early winter/oscar season release.

Universal dropped the ball on the release of this film on that aspect. As you can see, it was an important aspect.

I think the title was the problem - close to 80% of the people walking into a movie theater have no idea what movie they're about to watch and usually make up their minds by the title, or what movie has the next showing.

They should've called it "Russle Crowe boxing depression by Opie"

You think so? Maybe at the dollar theatre or university theater, but I wouldn't think of a full price evening show as a 'spontaneous' thing anymore. Maybe in the past, but most people I know go to see "Star Wars" or "Cinderella Man", not just "a movie."

Never underestimate the amount of folks who actually go to the theatre and decide right before buying a ticket on which movie they will watch. Name itself could be a distractor, but with the right amount of advertisment, you can pretty much mark anyone for anything and they will recite it on the spot. so it shouldn't be that big of a problem.

Variable pricing for movies wouldn't work since the theaters would have to hire more employees to guard the doors to each theater to make sure someone isn't buying a $2 ticket to see a $10 movie.

L8r

I thought the post was going to finish "...if Russell Crowe throws a phone at you."

But who is to say that the film would've done better in the "Oscar season?"

Sad that it's doing so poorly. Toss up between it and Batman for my fave of the year so far.