Cinemas have underwent quite an evolution the past few years. They had to adapt, get new equipment, open up to new possibilities. To stand their ground, complexes and cinemas had to diversify their activities and try new things to attract the public. Even if showing feature films remains their core activity, the projection of non-fiction content becomes a more serious path to explore. We met with Judith Michel, Content Services Sales Manager with XDC, to discuss what is now called “alternative content”.

What made you look into alternative content?

JMI: First, we were asked by cinema managers who got digital equipment. They immediately understood this allowed them to show content which was previously inaccessible with 35mm. Thanks to this new content, cinemas now have the possibility to attract a different public by offering a new product. The model comes to us from the States where in 2009 it took up 0.4% at the Box Office. So a new word emerged in cinema vocabulary: the term alternative content. By that we mean anything that is not strictly cinema. This includes sports events (football, rugby, etc.), cultural events (opera, concerts, etc.) or other manifestations (debates, meetings, etc.), but it could also be gaming. The goal is to allow the managers to broadcast content that will attract a new public and/or raise the price of a ticket by offering access to extraordinary events.

At the same time, producers are looking for a way to broaden their broadcasting possibilities.

By getting involved in both worlds, XDC was able to realise the importance of this market which is still coming up in Europe.

Will cinemas break out of the classic scheme where the viewers remain passive during the projection?

JMI : it depends on the managers and the orientation they choose. However, part of the cinema complexes will always remain dedicated to classic cinema. The way in which they will be able to diversify is that it will become possible to attract people who would normally not go to a cinema. Today we are looking towards more interactivity and more animation. We are now sitting in on debates where the public can live intervene by sending texts. So it would be possible to show a documentary and then organise a live debate out of multiple cinema rooms, in several countries, with interaction between speakers from all over the world.

Another way to work is like the Metropolitan Opera in New York. Broadcasting through a network of cinemas makes it possible for the public to access a complete live spectacle in a place that is relatively close to home, for a more affordable price, while still having a better view of the event (since image and sound are recorded from close by).

Would all content be suitable for broadcasting?

JMI : No, the content has to satisfy certain conditions. It's not as easy to do a live show with a DJ unless the theatre has been altered. For content to fill up a room, it has to be organised as part of a larger whole: the ticket could for example also include the entrance fee to a club, the screening would then be some sort of appetizer to set the mood. There must also be animation in the theatre, because if viewers are not put into the mood, they risk staying in their seats, which would be a shame for a rock concert, for example.

Other than this need to contextualise the event, the communication around it must be kept in mind. When a cinema puts a film on the bill, it benefits from the marketing around the film's release. For alternative content, such marketing starts from scratch.

On a sports level, are all sports suitable for in-cinema showing?

JMI : The 2010 Football World Cup was shown in 3D, live throughout cinemas in Europe. In the US basket and American football matches are projected. Each time, it's a real event. Beer is sold, there's an animator present in the theatre, etc.

However, some sports are more difficult. The Tour de France, for example, is broadcast over several hours. It becomes difficult to keep the atmosphere going, and on top of that the event is available on TV for free. Then why go out and buy a ticket?

The captations are expensive. Profitability is only possible if the event has international appeal. That is even more the case for 3D stereoscopy where the production cost is often twice as high.

According to you, is broadcasting alternative content a new profession cinema managers should learn?

JMI : Absolutely. It is probable that very soon companies will be founded to offer a total package (organisation, communication, animation during the event, etc.). However, this will depend on how the market will evolve. The circumstances are not the same in the US as in Europe. First, there's a language barrier: across the Atlantic English is the only language, but in Europe there are many spoken languages. You can't subtitle a live debate, for example. Secondly, the market is much smaller.

Also, captation costs are still very high today. The cinema managers claim an average of 50% of the earnings, knowing that they take a risk and that they have to ensure the communication themselves. The producers and distributors must then content themselves with dividing the remaining 50%.

But isn't it content which will be recorded anyway?

JMI : Most of the time, that is the case. The producers try to broadcast their content as largely as possible and are happy to gain access to cinemas. For many of them, it's an extra business opportunity they wouldn't have had with strictly 35mm. However, even when not taking the production costs into account, the simple cost of a satellite transmission varies between €3000 and €10,000. The ticket sale must be at least three times that amount. That means, in the best of cases, there must be €9000 made in sales, so, at €10 a ticket, 900 paying customers. In other words, you need at least 10 cinemas broadcasting the event. And that is without counting the communication costs.

Even more so because cinemas aren't all outfitted with the right equipment for satellite reception. Right now, for 6000 digital cinema rooms in Europe, between 1500 and 2000 are, which means around 200 cinema complexes because generally the content only takes up one room (and only part of these can also handle 3D stereoscopy).

Is there a preference for live?

JMI : There are two schools. Certain managers demand live because it creates the opportunity to make an event and the viewers will have a preview experience (nobody will have seen it on the internet before). It's a marketing argument allowing to raise the ticket price and create a buzz around the broadcasting.

Others are more on the fence. Managers sometimes have to block one room during the time otherwise reserved for 2 or 3 screenings of another film, which means a loss of revenue. On the other hand, broadcasting an opera on a Monday afternoon can fill up a room which would otherwise have remained rather empty.

On average, one live earns the same as two pre-recorded broadcasts.

Given these elements, can we consider the alternative content market as sustainable?

JMI : Unfortunately right now we don't have enough antecedents to establish a standard business model. But I think it is viable under the condition that alternative content is considered as a stand-alone product. Each broadcast must be handled on its own.