Cinema False Advertising

SimonTemplar

I was in a cinema recently and their ad for their loyalty card claimed the user could watch over 500 movies a year. This is clearly nonsense. That would be over 9 new movies a week. The cinema branch in question has 9 screens (average for their chain) so to live up to their claim, every week every screen would have to have a new movie and therefore no movie could play for more than one week. All of that is nonsense.

I reckon about 200 - 220 new movies are released in Ireland each year. I've no idea where they got that 500 figure from and how they could justify it.

If you include small independent / foreign / Bollywood movies that may only get a week in the cinema before quickly moving to home entertainment, over 500 movies are released. The BFI said that 698 movies were released in 2013. But that doesn't mean those 500+ movies would be available to the loyalty card holders of that cinema. As mentioned above, the numbers don't allow for that. And I reckon only a portion of those 698 movies were screened in Ireland.

So, would this be grounds for false advertising? I don't go to the cinema often enough to justify being a member of that loyalty card so I don't have one, and definitely have no interest in pursuing any legal challenges, but it is something that struck me when I saw the ad.

Addle

Seriously...
Do they advertise that you can watch 500 NEW movies a year?

GerardKeating

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I was in a cinema recently and their ad for their loyalty card claimed the user could watch over 500 movies a year. .

Did it say 500 Different movies, some dedicated fans might do a new Star wars movie a few times during the openinng week, even twice on the opening day.

LeinsterDub

Do you even have said loyalty card?

OU812

You could probably quite easily watch over 500 movies a year.

They don’t have to be a different one every time. It’s not up to them how many times you want to watch the latest cgifest, you could easily watch the same movie 21 times a week if you wanted. Change that movie once a month, you’ve seen 12 new movies & watched over 1,000 movies in a year

SimonTemplar

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I've no idea where they got that 500 figure from and how they could justify it.

a movie every day and a few extra on weekends

SimonTemplar

If you see one movie 10 times, you've still only seen one movie, but I get the argument noted above.

Victor

Addle wrote: »

Seriously...
Do they advertise that you can watch 500 NEW movies a week?

OP says year, not week.

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If you see one movie 10 times, you've still only seen one movie, but I get the argument noted above.

I concur.

Addle

Victor wrote: »

OP says year, not week.

Corrected.

Del2005

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If you see one movie 10 times, you've still only seen one movie, but I get the argument noted above.

But you've watched it 10 times and that's what the cinema is advertising in the OP.

The Pheasant2

Mere advertising puffery would be my defence.

SimonTemplar

Del2005 wrote: »

But you've watched it 10 times and that's what the cinema is advertising in the OP.

This is the text from the ad (I've removed the company's name)

Imagine you can see all the films you want as often as you like. Well now you can when you join XXXX. That's over 500 pulse-racing, rib-tickling, mind-bending movies a year.

I suppose the question is would it be reasonable for a person to expect to see 500 different movies a year or would they be required to see the same movie multiple times to reach the 500 figure.

Would it be like iTunes releasing a subscription entitling the user to watch 500 movies a year but not disclosing 1/2 of them can only be repeat viewings? As I said in my OP, it is impossible to watch 500 movies in the cinema a year unless a lot are repeat viewings.

I still think that figure is bizarre. If it is based on multiple viewings, why stop at 500. Why not 1000.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Just my random thoughts for the evening.

jaxxx

Hmm. Where words fail, pictures shall answer the call:

Del2005

SimonTemplar wrote: »

This is the text from the ad (I've removed the company's name)



I suppose the question is would it be reasonable for a person to expect to see 500 different movies a year or would they be required to see the same movie multiple times to reach the 500 figure.

Would it be like iTunes releasing a subscription entitling the user to watch 500 movies a year but not disclosing 1/2 of them can only be repeat viewings? As I said in my OP, it is impossible to watch 500 movies in the cinema a year unless a lot are repeat viewings.

I still think that figure is bizarre. If it is based on multiple viewings, why stop at 500. Why not 1000.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Just my random thoughts for the evening.

If you have no job or dependants you could watch 500 movies in a year.

The ad is like when an insurance company says quotes from €xxx but the criteria are nearly impossible to match or your Internet provider saying up xMb.

SimonTemplar

jaxxx wrote: »

Hmm. Where words fail, pictures shall answer the call:

Many thanks for your cogent legal argument. :rolleyes:

jaxxx

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Many thanks for your cogent legal argument. :rolleyes:

Even Judge Judy would be speechless, c'mon like.

callaway92

One of the saddest threads I’ve ever seen created on this site.

SimonTemplar

callaway92 wrote: »

One of the saddest threads I’ve ever seen created on this site.

I came here with a genuine question that interested me. You may disagree with me or believe my question lacks merit but no need to be insulting.

jaxxx

callaway92 wrote: »

One of the saddest threads I’ve ever seen created on this site.

There's another goodie in AH with someone claiming that insurance is gambling. Something in the air tonight me thinks.

Grassey

52 weeks in a year, 5 movies every Monday - Friday (1 a day over the working week) , 5 movies over weekend gives 520 movies... Bizarre figure now rendered mundane.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have any reasonable expectation that a cinema would be able to show 500+ new movies a year... Surely that's the realm of Netflix.

SimonTemplar

My argument as stated above clearly isn't concerning whether it is possible to see 500+ movies a year. Of course it is. It is possible to see double that figure if a person has the time and inclination.

My initial question (and again in post 12) concerns whether it is reasonable for a person to infer from the ad that they can watch 500 different movies.

Indricotherium

SimonTemplar wrote: »

This is the text from the ad (I've removed the company's name)



I suppose the question is would it be reasonable for a person to expect to see 500 different movies a year or would they be required to see the same movie multiple times to reach the 500 figure.

Would it be like iTunes releasing a subscription entitling the user to watch 500 movies a year but not disclosing 1/2 of them can only be repeat viewings? As I said in my OP, it is impossible to watch 500 movies in the cinema a year unless a lot are repeat viewings.

I still think that figure is bizarre. If it is based on multiple viewings, why stop at 500. Why not 1000.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Just my random thoughts for the evening.

Movies are delivered to cinemas these days on hard drives!

Technically there is no "film" involved at all. Really you can watch no "film"!!!!!

You have them by the nuts there twice over!!!

tedpan

Can't stand the cinema, haven't been in years. I don't understand why you'd want to sit in a dirty chair, sticky floor and watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know..