It’s been a good year for cinema. Bankers such as Men in Black and
the Lost World: Jurassic Park romped home and less fancied runners such
as the Full Monty delivered as well. Still to come is the new Bond film
and, er ... the Spice Girls. Who else? Spice World isn’t due for release
until Boxing Day, so most of its audience delivery will be in 1998 - but
even one week of Spice mania will probably help to push 1997 admission
figures past the 131 million mark.
That will be the highest since the 143 million admissions recorded in
1974. Cinema is the most powerful medium in existence. The audience
isn’t ironing or making cups of tea and the image is as big as it gets
It’s high quality too - which is why it’s the favourite medium for many
creative directors. All it needs are numbers. Bums on seats.
So now, in advertising terms, the medium must be booming. Well is
it?
Not exactly. Although people talk about cinema as a 1 per cent medium,
it actually struggles to get anywhere near 1 per cent of national
display advertising revenue (the most reliable recent figure was 0.8 per
cent).
Cinema advertising is sold by only two companies - Pearl & Dean and
Carlton Screen Advertising. The arrival in the market last year of
Carlton, which bought what was, once upon a time, Rank Screen
Advertising, was hailed in some quarters as a very good thing indeed.
Carlton said its mission would be to expand the medium’s client base.
And it was handily placed to do this - it could use its relationship
with its sister company, Carlton, the ITV sales house, to open difficult
client doors.
Agencies are divided as to the effectiveness of Carlton’s efforts in
this direction. But they are very clearly unimpressed by its efforts in
other directions - namely a dispute with P&D over how the admissions
figures break down. We know that Carlton represents cinemas accounting
for roughly 70 per cent of the audience. P&D has the remaining 30 per
cent. But for the last couple of months they’ve been daggers drawn over
the exact figure.
A disastrous own goal? According to Fiona Smedley, the joint managing
director of Universal McCann, the squabbling has badly affected the
medium’s revenue performance. She comments: ’Both were overclaiming to
the extent their figures added together totalled 109 per cent of
admissions.
That certainly didn’t help the credibility of the medium and advertisers
lost confidence. From the point of view of a planner, it is a 1 per cent
medium and it’s no use if it takes up 5 per cent of your time. It’s just
not worth it.’
But Smedley is by no means pessimistic about the medium’s future once
trading issues are resolved. Yet audiences are only a part of the
equation.
She adds: ’The truth is that they are a long way from being full. In
some categories such as alcohol, yes, there’s a limited supply but in
other areas there’s still a lot of scope. We’re seeing more multiplexes,
but they still have a long way to go. The number of screens per thousand
people in this country still lags way behind Europe and the US. And
multiplexes drive audiences and revenue - the more screens there are,
the more you have to pay to use them all. So the medium is nowhere near
its full potential.’
Can the two sales points really bury their differences? And, if so, can
increased audiences be translated into a greater share of advertising
revenue? Peter Howard-Williams, the managing director of P&D, argues
that the numbers row has been a storm in a teacup. He also argues that
the medium is busier than some people maintain. ’We’re fully booked for
most of the year - from summer onwards.’
But he cautions: ’Growth in revenue isn’t inevitable. One of our
problems is that we have limited minutage. The maximum is ten minutes
but some cinemas keep it to four and a half. Once we are full, the only
way to increase revenue is to increase yield. There’s no reason why we
can’t do that, but it’s certainly not our intention to disrupt the
market.’
Much of that is echoed by Debbie Chalet, the sales director of Carlton
Screen Advertising. ’Yes, we’ll be looking for advertisers to pay a
little more next year. We’re not completely sold but demand is certainly
outstripping supply for films such as Men in Black,’ she says.
Chalet is more willing to acknowledge the damage done by the squabbling:
’I admit the dispute meant that credibility was a problem and it has
taken the shine off the good news. But that issue is resolved now and we
are ready to forge ahead. And I think we have done exactly what we said
we would in terms of widening the client base. We’ve had masses of car
advertising and encouraged people such as Procter & Gamble to come
in.’
Nick Sperrin, the client services director of BBJ Media Services - the
medium’s biggest buyer - agrees that lot of people see cinema as two
little boys squabbling. ’Cinema should be going out and getting revenue
from TV, radio and press - as it is, it’s the lowest profile medium in
the industry, which is incredible when you consider the story they have
to tell. Last year, the highest rating TV spot against 16- to
34-year-olds came during the England/Holland game in Euro 96. It scored
3.9 million. Men in Black in the cinema scored 4.5 million.
’Cinema can grow beyond 1 per cent but revenue is not directly linked to
audience. That said, the fact that there are more eyes to buy will be a
factor,’ he adds.
But Steve Clark, a group director of Motive Communications, says the
medium still has to answer all sorts of difficult questions. ’For
example, how many people are actually in their seats when the ads are
on? Currently, we pay for every ticket sold.
’Cinema may be great but there are lots of other ways of reaching young
people these days - magazines are booming, there’s video, the Internet
and satellite TV. Year on year, revenue has been flat while audiences
have been up by 3 per cent. I’d just be a little bit sceptical about any
hype there is around the cinema medium.’
