AMC is testing out a surge pricing system by charging cinemagoers more money to see The Batman, in a move that has roundly been condemned as a scummy cash-grab. There's a little more to it than that, however. I hate to side with the megacorps, but surge pricing for cinemas isn't the worst idea in the world, although this might be the single worst way you could trial it - especially from an optics point of view.I love the cinema. I go most weekends, often to see a double feature. The last two weeks I've also been to midweek showings. In 2022, I've caught ten different pictures on the big screen, and have watched 149 movies in total. The Batman will be my 150th of the year if I don't watch anything else over the weekend, which I likely will. This isn't a brag - Christ, I mean... obviously - but it is important context. Most people who complain about the cinema being too expensive don't go very often, and probably aren't getting the best out of it. This goes double (or triple, or quadruple) if they're taking their kids to see the latest animated toy commercial and have to shell out for multiple tickets.For me, paying £13 a month to go as often as I want feels like a fair deal. Considering we're only just into March, let's call it five movies a month, each costing £2.60 each. The cinema gets the regular, reliable income from my subscription (plus the money I spend on concessions), and I get to watch movies at a much lower price than their ticket value. Of course, not everyone will get this same value from a subscription, which is why they pay at the door, which is why they think it's too expensive. Whether I've found a loophole in the high prices is irrelevant. The point, at least relating to surge prices, is that no one is going.
In all ten movies I've seen this year, less than half of the theatre has been full. Less than a quarter was full for all but Scream and Uncharted, and even then, it was only just about half. There is yet to be a superhero movie this year though, and right now superhero movies are king. This weekend my cinema is only showing The Batman, every hour on the hour, in every single screen. Cinemas are betting big on it. Who can blame them - no one is showing up to anything else. I think talk that 'cinema is dying' when Spider-Man: No Way Home outgrosses Belfast and Nightmare Alley combined is a little overdramatic, but the fact is not enough people are showing up for anything that doesn’t involve some kind of caped crusader. Again, I ask - who can blame them? Not only is there still a pandemic (our theatre is relatively good with enforcing masking up but your mileage may vary), one-off tickets are vastly more expensive than subscriptions, we all pay for multiple streaming services, and the half-life of a theatrical run seems shorter than ever nowadays. The King's Man opened on January 6 in the UK. It joined Disney+ last week. Had my ticket not been effectively free with my subscription, I would have felt very ripped off. The Matrix Resurrections was released theatrically and via streaming at the same time in December, while Black Widow was the subject of a much publicised lawsuit after it arrived on Disney+ earlier than Scarlett Johansson had anticipated.
That's why I think surge prices are a good idea - just not like this. If you're the boss of AMC, you need more people to go to the cinema. The solution to that major, industry-wide problem, is not a one-off price gouge for The Batman, but to completely adjust your model. The last two movies I went to see were Cyrano and The Duke. The next two will be The Batman and The Phantom of the Open. These four movies, wildly different in runtime, blockbuster appeal, cinematic quality, and audience demographic, will all cost the same. I don't just mean they'll cost me the same with my subscription, I mean they will cost anyone who wanders in off the street the exact same price. It's ludicrous. One way to have trialled this system would have been to have a prestige picture like Cyrano and a blockbuster like The Batman at the normal price, and then your more niche features like Duke and Phantom at a lower price. Would more people go to see a comedy about Mark Rylance shooting the worst round in the history of the British Open if you shaved $3 off the tickets? No idea, but at least you'd gain some much needed positive publicity instead of the scorn being thrown at you for penny pinching on the year's biggest movie so far.
Speaking cynically, this could even have come with a pricing adjustment that seems fair, but in reality is not. For example, you lower the price by $2 on The Duke, knowing it's unlikely to move the needle much and therefore won't lead to a major loss, while upping the price by $2 on The Batman. You're giving two bucks here, and taking two bucks there, so it seems balanced but the odds are hugely in your favour. I can't believe I'm advocating for this, but the way AMC is doing it is so monumentally stupid I feel I have no choice.Bumping the ticket prices up as a one-time thing might not drive people away, especially so close to opening weekend when everyone's mind is made up, but it could mean more concessions snuck in and less bought at the stand. AMC is also trying to clean up here with a ridiculous Batman popcorn helmet, and it all feels as if AMC desperately needs the money right now and is hoping The Batman is the answer to its prayers.
Maybe things are that bleak and we're at make or break for AMC, and if so I can understand the desperation to charge more money for a sure-fire hit after the one-two punch of the pandemic and the continued rise of digital left the cinemas feeling like relics. Long term, surge pricing could work - if you venture out from the comfort of superhero blockbusters, variable pricing could end up making the theatre experience much cheaper. But if this is how AMC is going to do it, then it's less of an evolution, and another money-grubbing nail in cinema's coffin.