This is a really cool idea. However, the article was highly confusing. It says they grossed $25,000, but that it only screened in 1 theater, and they rented the theater for the day, but only paid...
This is a really cool idea. However, the article was highly confusing. It says they grossed $25,000, but that it only screened in 1 theater, and they rented the theater for the day, but only paid a small fee because they knew the owner. So how did it gross $25,000? They even say they had a small loss implying that the few dollars they spent to rent the theater was their loss.
"Four-walling is when distributors rent out a movie theatre and buy all the seats," Mr Tabach, who used to work at BuzzFeed making viral videos, explained.
"So they pay a flat fee to the theatre, and any money they make off seats goes straight into their pockets. The moment we realised that was an option of distribution, we went for it."
and then:
They decided to screen the movie at an independent theatre in Westhampton Beach, outside New York City, where Mr Nilsson used to work. To rent the theatre, they were required to pay a small fee.
In that sense, "we made a slight loss" on the movie, Mr Tabach said.
So is the $25,000 figure just the amount the tickets would have cost if they were actually bought? But really they only paid a small fee instead of the full $25,000? If so, why is it counted as $25,000? I don't understand that part.
The 25K figure is a gross - in other words, it's all the money they took in. It does not account for how much they spent. The part about four-walling means that they spent a flat fee to have it...
The 25K figure is a gross - in other words, it's all the money they took in. It does not account for how much they spent.
The part about four-walling means that they spent a flat fee to have it screened, and then they make their money back by charging for admission. The fee typically includes the box office service; basically to to collect the ticket prices from customers and give the money back to the people paying for the screening. If enough tickets get sold, you can make a profit.
It would appear on reading the parts after that last quote that they simply opted not to sell any of the tickets for that showing, so that screening generated no revenue - just pure loss.
The article doesn't say how much profit they made.
Yeah, it was just a really poorly written article all-around. It gave me the impression that they were the only 2 people in the theater at each showing, as well, but I guess that wasn't entirely...
Yeah, it was just a really poorly written article all-around. It gave me the impression that they were the only 2 people in the theater at each showing, as well, but I guess that wasn't entirely clear either.
I presumed the $25k daily revenue represented actual ticket sales, not the four walling cost. If you rent the theatre for $500, you could sell all 250 tickets to yourself for $20 each for all five...
I presumed the $25k daily revenue represented actual ticket sales, not the four walling cost.
If you rent the theatre for $500, you could sell all 250 tickets to yourself for $20 each for all five runs.
In theory you had ticket sales of $25k, even though you were selling the tickets to yourself.
$25k seems an aweful lot for a theatre where the average theatrical run is $100.
This is a really cool idea. However, the article was highly confusing. It says they grossed $25,000, but that it only screened in 1 theater, and they rented the theater for the day, but only paid a small fee because they knew the owner. So how did it gross $25,000? They even say they had a small loss implying that the few dollars they spent to rent the theater was their loss.
and then:
So is the $25,000 figure just the amount the tickets would have cost if they were actually bought? But really they only paid a small fee instead of the full $25,000? If so, why is it counted as $25,000? I don't understand that part.
The 25K figure is a gross - in other words, it's all the money they took in. It does not account for how much they spent.
The part about four-walling means that they spent a flat fee to have it screened, and then they make their money back by charging for admission. The fee typically includes the box office service; basically to to collect the ticket prices from customers and give the money back to the people paying for the screening. If enough tickets get sold, you can make a profit.
It would appear on reading the parts after that last quote that they simply opted not to sell any of the tickets for that showing, so that screening generated no revenue - just pure loss.
The article doesn't say how much profit they made.
Yeah, it was just a really poorly written article all-around. It gave me the impression that they were the only 2 people in the theater at each showing, as well, but I guess that wasn't entirely clear either.
I presumed the $25k daily revenue represented actual ticket sales, not the four walling cost.
If you rent the theatre for $500, you could sell all 250 tickets to yourself for $20 each for all five runs.
In theory you had ticket sales of $25k, even though you were selling the tickets to yourself.
$25k seems an aweful lot for a theatre where the average theatrical run is $100.