Boycott Bubble Blowers

Here’s an underreported story if ever there was one (from the IMDb Studio Briefing):

Theater owners are apparently mounting a fairly united front to black out the Steven Soderbergh-directed Bubble in many cities on Friday. Exhibitors object to the planned simultaneous release of the movie on DVD and on pay-per-view high-definition TV. (The film is actually being released on DVD on Tuesday, the day of the week that virtually all DVDs are released.) The film is being distributed by Magnolia Pictures, owned by Mark Cuban, the dot-com entrepreneur who also owns 2929 Entertainment, the film company that backed Bubble, and the art-house theater chain Landmark Theaters. The Baltimore Sun reported today (Thursday) that no theater in that city, the country’s 24th largest market, will screen the film. It quoted Scott Cohen, head of R/C Theater Management, as saying, “At this point we’re not going to play any movie that is under that model.” In Seattle, where the film will open at one theater, Landmark’s Metro, an unnamed exhibitor told the Post-Intelligencer, “It’s not a question of if we will be hurt [by simultaneous release of movies in theaters and on DVD]; it’s a question of how much.” In an article on his website posted on Wednesday, Cuban indicated that some exhibitors have defied the stonewall being erected against his film, but he does not indicated how many have agreed to screen it. He urges patrons of those theaters to “thank the manager … for having the balls to go against the rest of the industry.”

It makes me incredibly angry that theatre owners, instead of working their butts off to compete fairly by offering a great viewing experience, are using anti-competitive tactics to deny consumers choice.

So here’s an idea: let’s boycott any cinema that thinks distorting the market and coercing consumers is the best way to compete. Let them get a taste of their own medicine! I wanted to put a little button in my sidebar that says “Boycott Bubble Blowers”. Something like:

Unfortunately my graphical skills are barely sufficient even for this simple mockup. If someone reading this agrees with me and is capable of making something cool-looking, I promise to put it in my sidebar, link it to a suitably apoplectic rant and encourage others to do so (while giving full credit of course). I cribbed the text for the movie title from the Internet Movie Database.

Update: Thanks to the design skills of Julia I’ve set up a website for my first foray into consumer activism. It includes a cool button, suitable for placement on your own blog or website!

Bookmark to:

16 Comments »

1. When you’re already waist-deep in the tar pits you’re going to thrash around a bit.

   Comment by Greg — 1/27/2006 @ 4:27 pm

2. But doesn’t that just make you sink faster? I’m pretty sure I saw that on Gilligan’s Island.

   Comment by Matt — 1/27/2006 @ 5:10 pm

3. Matt, Applying you logic of being against strong-arm anti-competitive measures, should I assume that you are against Unions using strikes to force concessions from businesses? Should union members simply compete fairly by working smarter and being more efficient than their low-paid Chinese competition?

   Comment by Mike — 1/27/2006 @ 10:19 pm

4. I’d love to participate, but I’ve been “boycotting” movies in theaters and on DVD for many years already.

   Actually, it’s not a boycott. When you stop buying things you would otherwise buy in protest of the provider’s practices, that’s a boycott. When you stop buying the product because //it sucks//, that’s just market choice.

   Comment by Nato Welch — 1/27/2006 @ 10:47 pm

5. Mike,

   The logic behind unions is that the balance of power between an individual and a company is unacceptably lopsided. This is borne out both by history and by the fact that today’s knowledge workers, who command far more power, are much less likely to unionize. It’s hard to see how companies could be seen to be at a similiar disadvantage with respect to consumers.

   Comment by Matt — 1/27/2006 @ 11:13 pm

6. The theaters are boycotting the moves by a movie distribution company. One might argue that the theaters are on the weak end of a lopsided power balance with regard to the Hollywood establishment, particularly with the emergence of pay-per-view and DVD/VHS (and soon mas online distribution) plus better HD home theaters. Furthermore the huge promotional efforts by the film distribution companies clearly puts them in the position of power vis-a-vis the theater. So if you support the rights of the little guy to protest against what is an unfair power balance, then you should support the theaters’ stike. I don’t have a personal stake, but I can appreciate their concern because this is how they feed their families, and it is severly threatened. So they attempt Custer’s last stand…

   BTW, the consumer always suffers, whether it is an airline union striking or the theater owners.

   Comment by Mike — 1/28/2006 @ 8:26 pm

7. Yeah. I hear that most theaters barely make money actually, particularly the types that would be screening bubble anyway. The move on the part of Cuban’s company sounds cool, like he is restructuring how media is delivered like he is always trying to do, but that model definitely does screw over theaters. I hear that distribution companies profit more on dvd sales than theater releases, and Mark’s empire is definitely mangnitudes larger than most theater chains. So it turns out that it’s the big distribution company leveraging strong arm anti-competative tactics against smaller companies lower on their supply chain. Who knew?
   The tactics on the part of the theater owners do hurt the consumers, but it’s actually concievable that quite a few arthouse theaters would simply go out of business if such a distribution model became prevalent.
   I guess it comes down to whether you like dvds more than theaters enough to basically destroy the business model of small theaters. I don’t.

   It would be interesting if they did do a limited dvd release at the same time… and then sold them at the theaters. Think “like this movie? pay four more dollars and get the dvd right after watching it.” That would be interesting.

   Comment by J. S. Nelson — 1/29/2006 @ 9:38 pm

8. It’s silly to suggest that movie theaters are in the same boat as consumers because they are “on the weak end of a lopsided power balance with regard to the Hollywood establishment” or that “that model definitely does screw over theaters.” Business models change rapidly in our technological age, and measures to cling to old models have failed time and again. If movie theaters can’t compete fairly with other ways of watching films, they will fall by the wayside just like the horse-drawn carriage, the rotary telephone and the Commodore 64. I’m sure the horse-drawn carriage manufacturers were up in arms about this at one time, but if they had been allowed to slow the march of technological progress, society as a whole would have paid a hugely disproportionate price. The same is true here. Different rules apply to individuals and companies, period, because unlike individuals, companies can take their inputs (capital and labor) and deploy them elsewhere.

   Regarding unions: In the case of airline union strike, the public suffers minimally for a few days. The theatre owners are trying to block a major new avenue of consumer choice for all eternity. The two can hardly be lumped together as proof that “the consumer always suffers.”

   Comment by Matt — 1/30/2006 @ 5:42 pm

9. If as you say companies should just respond to changes by deploying their capital and labor elsewhere, then all unionized manufacturing will move to China where there are no unions or expensive social programs to support, no insurance, etc. Just as with the shift from the horse and buggy to the car, high paid manufacturing workers in the US and Europe can just start flipping burgers…or so I deduce from your position ;).

   Things are not as black and white as you make present here. There is a lot of grey. If you, as an individual, invested your life savings in an arthouse theater to help inform people, under the tacit agreement that you would get these movies before DVD, and then someone changed the rules of the game, you too would be upset…as an individual.

   To quote Michael Corleone in the Godfather: “It’s not personal Sonny. It’s strictly business.” But in reality everything is personal, and those people who invested in arthouse theaters are individuals being steamrolled by the powerful Hollywood establishment.

   Comment by Mike — 1/30/2006 @ 6:12 pm

10. I’m a huge proponent of free trade, and I do believe that the American workforce needs to continue its shift away from low-skill manufacturing in order to compete with countries like China that have a huge comparative advantage in this area. Obviously there are many considerations besides unionization, but the bottom line is that the gradual migration of less skilled activities to countries further down the development chain is to everyone’s benefit in the long term, though of course this is capitalism so there will always be some losers in the short term, and society has to decide how much to cushion their position and how (but definitely not through the regressive mechanism of blocking trade).

    Your thought experiment about individuals who invested their entire life savings into arthouse theaters made me chuckle. I don’t think an argument based on this type of far-fetched scenario has much value. But I’ll take it at face value and say this: there are mechanisms for protecting this type of business if society feels that it is important despite not being economically viable. They could be subsized by taxpayers’ money like the National Theater in London, for example. The right way to go about this is definitely not to penalize all consumers my taking away their right to choose where they want to watch movies.

    I should add that both the hypothesis that movies theaters (arthouse or otherwise) are inherently uneconomical and the hypothesis that simultaneous release will result in lower cinema receipts are totally unproven and, in my equally unproven opinion, both dead wrong.

    Comment by Matt — 1/30/2006 @ 6:28 pm

11. I guess I could skype you to resolve this in person but writing in public (limited as it is) is so much more fun. So you agree capitalism is based on moving resources to maximize your return (e.g. manufacturing in China). So if a theater determines that a simultaneous release on DVD and theaters will result in a lesser amount of revenue to them than other movies they could show on their screens, aren’t they free to allocate their resources (movie screens) as they see fit and NOT show Bubble? They already make those decisions with movie selection (X-rated vs. R vs. PG…, etc.) on a daily basis. So why boycott them for making what they believe is a proper decision on the allocation of their limited resources?

    Comment by Mike — 1/31/2006 @ 2:21 am

12. Mike, you are absolutely right. If I believed that these cinemas were making the decision not to screen Bubble based on good business reasons (maximizing revenue per screen), I would have no objection whatsoever. I don’t believe this though. It is clear from the statements I’ve read that they are colluding to “punish” the distributor for having the temerity to challenge their cosy monopoly.

    Comment by Matt — 1/31/2006 @ 10:45 am

13. Um, no, these cinemas are making the decision based on good business reasons, and its exactly maximizing revenue per screen. That however does not make it right. It does however discredit your opinion when you state things so confidently without knowing basic facts about the businesses your discussing. Crazy idea — How about you focus on your business and finishing up this great little app we’ve all been waiting months for?

    Comment by Travis — 2/3/2006 @ 7:34 am

14. why does it always boil down to shut up and code?

    Comment by Mike — 2/4/2006 @ 2:03 am

15. If it would hurt theaters so much to release a movie in this model, it would seem that the market does not want as many theaters. Supporting this move should lessen economic bloat (theaters), which, according to those who support free trade, helps everyone in the local economy.

    To me, the move to not screen Bubble just seems stupid. If it is true that they are reacting to the simultaneous release as DVD, how does it help them to remove it from their theaters? If it is true that the market does not want theaters, how does it help them to force a confirmation of this by allowing a movie like this to be available only elsewhere?

    In the last 5 years or so, theaters have realized that people don’t go to theaters for the movies. Why would I spend $18 for two tickets to a movie when I could spend $19.99 for the DVD and watch it at home? Well, because I don’t have a monster screen and a ridiculously expensive sound system. The thought that most people say “Wow, I really want to go see Movie X. I better find someone to go to the theaters with.” has been discredited over what really happens: “I want to go to the movies. What’s playing when I can go?”

    Comment by mwarden — 2/4/2006 @ 9:20 pm

16. The Movies Versus Your Comfortable Living Room Chair

    To me it has the distinct feeling of a monopoly, where no one has to compete for your business so they don’t bother. The existence of smaller chains like Landmark makes for more choice in type of movie, but is anyone out there offering a unique approa…

    Trackback by Earthling - EarthLink blog — 2/21/2006 @ 10:59 pm

Trackback URL RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>