Measuring Up

Dinner and a movie redefined

My wife and I took nearly a dozen 11-year olds to the movies this weekend to celebrate our son’s birthday. We  had heard a lot about AMC Movie Theaters’ progressive, new offering "Fork and Screen" which includes actually eating a ‘gourmet’ dinner while watching the movie. Naturally, everyone was wondering how the set-up, food choices and overall experience would change from what had always been the norm. Here’s my own Siskel and Ebert review on the New AMC experience.

For starters, there’s no doubt that this is a true transformative change to the consumer movie experience.
For those who’ve yet to experience those first theaters that have been altered, AMC recreated its lobby to look more like a swanky bar. And, its theater has been completely redone to feel more like a dark lounge where one might come to listen to Robert Goulet or Burt Bacharach perform their singing acts versus watching  an action flick (like the Green Hornet). There is definitely a more positive upbeat vibe about the theater, as well. The seats are much more comfortable leather recliners. Every row has long, black tables in front of them and because they’ve removed probably about forty percent of the seats, there’s enough leg room to make you believe you’re not in a move theater anymore.

Then there’s the menu. That’s the biggest change. Lobster ravioli and steak tips. Fancy drinks and high end beers. And, cheesecakes and mousses for desserts. Of course, they offer run of the mill appetizers (potato skins, wings) and the typical popcorn, candy and soda for everyone who comes to the movies expecting some of the same.

I thought it was all pretty cool.  We never tried any of this new fare, but some of the guests near us commented that it beats the Olive Garden. Of course, that comment could be taken many different ways (for the record, we represent T.G.I Friday’s, a competitor in the marketplace).  Even the overall price of everything combined was appealing. The movie itself now cost $20-$23 per ticket.  That seems awfully expensive. But, it isn’t once you realize that the theater also provides a $10 credit on each ticket for food. Since 11 kids really only ate popcorn, some candy and sodas, I probably saved a little money in the end. My guess is that AMC’s real target here are adults who will eat more substantively and drink numerous alcoholic beverages. That’s probably the money maker for them.

The most bizarre part (because my senses just didn’t expect it) was the waiters delivering pints of beer, margaritas and full entrees throughout the movie to various tables. It didn’t interfere with my movie experience, although I found myself on half a dozen occasions staring at trays, wondering what beverages or foods people were ordering.

The only negative experience we had (and it did take away from the movie) was the service. In the past, it was pretty simple. I bought popcorn and soda in the lobby and then went directly to my seat and started eating during previews and throughout movie. Now, they take your orders when you’re in the seats before the movie starts. First we received our drinks, but that wasn’t until after the previews had ended. Then, everyone was handed popcorn about 10 minutes into the movie. Finally, the kids received their candy approximately 15 minutes after that. Kind of a buzz kill from a desired eating standpoint. And, instead of watching the movie, you’re left staring at the doors wondering when the rest of your food will arrive.

At Peppercom, we’ve started focusing more and more on how our clients’ customers experience their brand and how that may differ from the messages and overall positioning that the client is currently communicating. It’s really fascinating to see how and where break downs typically occur. My guess is that AMC is still in the early stages of tinkering with this new business model. It’s clearly a game changer for the industry.  By understanding the good and bad of these first customer experiences, AMC can clearly create a more consistent, appealing  and successful consumer offering moving forward.  Let’s see if they utilize these comments to improve.

My review so far, two thumbs up.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen

Blockbuster, the one-time business growth success story and king of the video industry, is heading into bankruptcy.

Although the company’s fall has steadily been in the works for years, it will become a classic text book example of how new, disruptive technologies can take down what seemed like an invincible business giant. What happened is pretty simple. While this industry leader continued to expand by opening dozens and dozens of new video stores around the country, upstarts like Netflix understood that the entire model supporting video distribution was about to change forever. Because of this, it innovated by bridging the gap by offering consumers a better distribution method (receiving DVD’s through the mail) and more importantly, it understood that the creation and distribution of content via the web would soon trump everything else. So, it signed a variety of deals to secure content partnerships where consumers could stream online video so much easier.

Then, of course, we all became customers of Amazon and Apple because their customer-centric content offerings brought that much more convenience to consumers across the globe.

Blockbuster is a victim of its own success. It failed to see these emerging trends. And, while the company also made a variety of bad decisions along the way, ultimately, it just waited too long to jump aboard this bandwagon. That lack of strategic vision, foresight (or just plain complacent attitude) made Blockbuster an extremely late entrant into a competitive field. Thus, it never could capture significant market share, all the while it continued to consistently plummet with its traditional video business.

Clayton Christenson, the renown author of Innovator’s Dilemma, professor at Harvard Business School (and a former Peppercom client), wrote a lot about how companies need to constantly look into the future to understand the power of new game changing technologies. He believed that the difference between success and failure was pretty simple. These technologies could be leveraged to reinvent or change companies’ business models to meet the coming demands of consumers. In these cases, upstarts like Google, Netflix or Amazon could actually topple their largest and most successfully long standing competitors. Or, these technologies would only serve to disrupt and ultimately kill those businesses because they became irrelevant to their customers.  

My guess is that Clayton (or some other professor) at Harvard Business School will be discussing Blockbuster in class today, as a prime case in point of how disruption worked this very week.

Making Oscar ethical again...

I found this article amusing. As you'll read, one of the co-producers of the highly acclaimed small budget film "Hurt Locker" has been banned from attending this year's Oscar Awards Ceremony.

It seems Nicholas Chartier broke Academy rules by emailing some Academy judges in February, urging them to vote for his film as movie of the year. In the same email, he lambasted the high budget, fan favorite (Avatar) that is the clear front runner.

Academy campaign rules ban direct personal communications with members, and explicitly ban any attempt to cast a negative light on a competing film. Mr. Chartier has apologized. But, his penalty is set in stone.

It's hard for me to say whether this man's "ethical” lapse in judgment calls for a penalty like this. But, I find this whole episode ironic. From what I hear, personal emails such as this are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how studios (and their representatives) now market, lobby and directly sell, push and prod to convince Academy judges to vote for their films.

Yes, this has become a big business within Hollywood. And, one that isn't taken lightly by PR, promotions, advertising, agents and other niche service providers who make big bucks spending lots of time and energy waging hard hitting campaigns to achieve results. The pursuit of the Oscar is understandable. Winning one these days means instant fame for newbie's in the business and creates an ongoing spotlight of recognition for any actor, director (or even sound producer) who is continually looking to build his/her career. It also means the ability to command a lot more money on any future films, promotions and sponsorships.

Peppercom has never gotten involved in the Hollywood scene (thank God). A firm really needs to have deep Tinseltown roots to be effective in that city (which is all about who you know versus the substance of one's communications strategy). That just never interested us. But, I have marketing and entertainment friends who are highly networked into this scene. Most agree, that the battle to obtain the Oscar has become an absolute obsession which has forced friendly competitors to become hostile combatants who often take on a "win at all cost" attitude. I've heard that it's not uncommon for campaigns to include "unofficial and casual" lunches or drinks with Academy members, as well as gifts (offered under other auspices) and nasty public relations battles behind the scenes with Hollywood media and other influencers who can help sway both perceptions and decisions. And, of course, in typical Hollywood fashion, malicious and often scandalous rumors about directors and their actors/casts are routinely spread to undermine credibility and their appeal.

I wonder if this one-off penalty will really have any impact on a system that is plagued with ethics problems and has gone completely awry? No doubt, the Oscar founders didn't have this in mind when the platform was created. It seems to me that a complete assessment and then revamping of the rules and principles guiding how the participants "campaign" for the Oscars really needs to be looked at versus this insignificant band aid approach.

“Bring back the better days of capitalism”

As I was working out this morning, I watched a taped version of Bill Maher’s interview the other night with documentary guru Michael Moore. The interview and brief glimpse of his new documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story” seems really entertaining. No doubt, each of Moore’s films does a valiant job of shedding a few rays of light on particular parts of our “American way” that are broken and need some real fixing. But, my overall feeling about Moore is that he is an entertainer (much like Rush Limbaugh is at the other end of the political spectrum), versus a truly informed subject matter expert. I believe that the good people of America really need to understand this.

Please understand that I have nothing against Moore. I am not one of those conservatives who looks at him as the anti-Christ. Instead, I try to maintain an objective viewpoint to truly understand his story lines, facts and where he is generally coming from. The problem I have with taking Michael seriously is that his commentary is often distorted and sometimes it’s just plain wrong as Bill Maher really pointed out in this interview. Although his sensationalistic way of making consumers feel the issue at hand is both witty and unique. (That’s why his films do so well.) They also tend to misrepresent the absolute truth of the matter, versus correctly illuminating what the real issue should be.

Let’s take his current documentary. He came onto Maher’s show with great fanfare and to huge applause. (No surprise, Bill’s show is a sanctuary for those left thinkers.) After a few softball questions and answers, Bill asked a very good question. He said something like, “Michael in your film, you actually depict capitalism as evil. I don’t think it’s evil and disagree with you on that. Is that what you are saying?”

Moore’s response was, “I don’t mean that capitalism is evil. I just believe that we need to bring back the better days of capitalism when it was about the ‘American Dream’ and a much fairer system for all.”

Hmmmm…..

Let’s see. I’d like to ask Michael a few (rhetorical) questions based on that response. Michael, do you mean that capitalism was much more fair for all Americans 20 years ago when junk bonds blew up on Wall Street? I seemed to remember that tens of thousands of people lost their jobs then (many who weren’t involved with Wall Street) and thousands of other innocent victims lost their life savings.

Right. You must mean that the “better days” were actually much deeper into our American past. OK. How about when capitalism treated everyone so fairly during that little episode known as the Great Depression (lasting almost a decade)? If memory serves, millions of average and below average ‘Joes’ lost their livelihoods, homes and pretty much all they owned in every town and city across America.

No? You actually mean earlier than that, Michael? Ok, let’s go back further into the 19th century. Michael, have you ever read about the depression of 1890? During this period, capitalism ran amok, as well.  You see, too many people attempted to redeem silver notes for gold. A panic ensued because the statutory limit for the minimal amount of gold in the Federal Reserve was reached and US Notes could no longer be successfully redeemed for gold. Everything was heavily financed through bond issues, which of course had extremely high interest payments that couldn’t be paid anymore. (Can you spell excess?) From there, banks everywhere failed, giant railroads shuttered and over 15,000 companies went bankrupt, creating 25 percent unemployment in our “fair capitalistic” America.

I could go on and on by discussing the 1819 depression or the 1837-1843 depression, or even the 1869 depression. But, I won’t. 

My point is that socialists like Michael Moore tend to be more about ideals than what’s really pragmatic. More to the point, our capitalistic society has never been fair to all (and in fact, has periodically broken down since its inception.) It simply wasn’t built that way. Instead, it’s a system that needs strong checks and balances to ensure that it can work reasonably well for most. But unfortunately, greed and the need for excess have caused the system to break down about every 10-20 years. This typically happens when the checks and balances aren’t really working all that well anymore because most everyone is living too fat and happy.  That’s not good. But, it is the nature of this beast. The ‘American Way’ is something special that our form of capitalism does offer many Americans, though. Although the odds are long, there is a tall list of business people and entrepreneurs who came from no money and sometimes little education to become successful because of hard work, very smart decisions and a little fortune.

Michael Moore’s point of view really isn’t based on reality. That’s why I treat his films as entertainment. He wants to create a pure, socialistic society. But, that can never happen in America (at least in our lifetime.) If he really wants to live his dream, the man should just move to Sweden, where every day (for him) will be better than the one before it because capitalism just doesn’t exist.