«Dead!?» It’s time for cinema operators to have their say
Too much advertising, too expensive and a lack of consideration for audiences: the head of Sony Pictures came down hard on cinema operators at CinemaCon. I wanted to know what they had to say about it – so I asked them for their side of the story.
At CinemaCon in Las Vegas, Tom Rothman, head of Sony Pictures, did something you don’t often see – he told cinema operators to their faces what they’re doing wrong. That is, they show too many ads, make their prices too high and have a lack of consideration for audiences.
Well, Rothman may not be entirely wrong, but he’s part of the problem. After all, film studios helped create the model that put cinemas in this situation.
The Community’s response to the article was overwhelming. Dozens of comments, a lot of support, but also some dissent. I was struck by one thing in particular. In the whole debate about how cinemas are too expensive and lack originality, one voice is almost never heard – that of the cinema owners themselves.
So I set out to gather opinions, and spoke with four people who know the Swiss film industry from the inside:
- Frank Braun, media spokesperson for Neugass Kino AG, the operator of the Riffraff, Houdini and Bourbaki cinemas in Zurich.
- Alain Marti, managing director and owner of Kino Thun AG, and president of the Swiss Cinema Association (SKV).
- Edna Epelbaum, CEO of the Cinevital Group and president of ProCinema, the umbrella organisation for the Swiss cinema and film distribution industry.
- Christian Ströhle, operator of the Korso cinema in Fribourg, which opened in September 2024.
I also contacted Pathé Suisse. Unfortunately, Switzerland’s largest cinema chain didn’t have much to say for itself.
I used comments from my Community, that is, feedback from film-goers, as a starting point for our discussion, as they reveal what audiences are moved by, annoyed by and what they think’s missing.
Money: who gets what from a ticket sale?
Let’s start with the question that determines everything else. How much of the ticket price actually goes to the cinema?
The answer’s clear – and sobering. All interviewees confirm more or less the same basic model. In the first few weeks after a film’s release, approximately 50 per cent of ticket revenue goes to the cinema, and 50 per cent to the distributor. Only after this time period does the cinema’s share rise to at least 70 per cent. Sounds like a fair deal, right? But it’s not, according to the cinema owners.
On average, cinemas in Switzerland receive less than 60 per cent of the total revenue, says Braun of the Riffraff, Houdini and Bourbaki cinemas – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to costs. With what’s left, they have to cover rent, infrastructure, staff, utilities, the ticketing system and credit card fees. «When you consider that value added tax and SUISA royalty fees are deducted from the ticket price before this amount is even divided, we start off with an even smaller pie to be shared,» confirms SKV president Marti.
«The maths is pretty simple,» adds Epelbaum of ProCinema: «There isn’t much profit left over from the revenue generated by a cinema ticket.»
Cinema owners need to find ways of generating additional revenue because their profit margin on tickets is too low.
That’s the fundamental truth about how the cinema business is structured. And it explains almost everything that annoys film-goers.
Advertising: a survival strategy, not greed
A reader wrote in my comments field: «I still remember how I had to sit through 30 minutes of ads before the last film I went to see.» The response to this comment was clear, with it garnering lots of likes and replies backing it up.
Why’s that? Marti‘s straight to the point: «If we scrapped all advertising, we’d have to raise ticket prices by two to three Swiss francs.» Advertising, then, isn’t a matter of greed, but rather a substitute for the revenue that the distribution model denies cinemas.
Braun agrees, but qualifies his statement: «Half an hour is definitely too long. And if the ads are stupid to boot, it makes the whole situation all the more annoying.» At the same time, he defends the principle that good advertising is part of cinema culture. He goes so far as to mention the «Cannes Rolle» – a reel of internationally acclaimed commercials that has even become part of the programme itself.
Epelbaum advises readers to see advertising «as part of the film.» That was the only sentence in the entire conversation that really made me wince. I understand the logic – but I don’t think audiences will be easily convinced. Ströhle, on the other hand, who runs the Korso cinema in Fribourg, is the only one who doesn’t show any external ads in his cinema, with the exception of self-promotion for events held there. He can do this because his model works differently – more on that later.
Prices are too high! But who’s standing in the way of a solution?
In my e-mail to the cinema owners, I break down the cost of my last trip to the cinema. 23 Swiss francs for the ticket, just under 20 Swiss francs for popcorn, a drink and an ice cream – and that was just for me. For a family with two kids, the cost of an evening out could easily surpass 100 Swiss francs. «I’d rather go to the pool and then have a proper meal,» one reader commented.
Marti counters by citing the average ticket price in Switzerland in 2026, which is 17.87 Swiss francs. That’s less than many people assume. But premium formats like IMAX are much more expensive, plus food and drinks are an extra cost. In fact, I recently came across a study which revealed that, while people go to the cinema less often than they did a few years ago, they’re willing to spend more on it, thanks to formats like IMAX, 4DX and home cinema setups.
But the key question is why can’t cinemas simply lower prices, even for «standard» formats? Braun provides the bluntest answer: «Attempts to slash prices repeatedly fail due to resistance from film distributors, who insist on maintaining their usual ticket margin, therefore forcing cinemas to absorb the cost of the price cuts themselves.»
That’s what Tom Rothman should’ve said in Las Vegas. Instead, he gave cinema owners a telling off. When a cinema reduces its ticket prices, the distributor still wants its fixed share, so the cinema alone loses out. Not only does this display a lack of solidarity, it also makes real price cuts almost impossible due to structural reasons.
So I’ll ask the obvious question. Do cinema owners have any bargaining power at all with the studios? The answers are honest – and sometimes painful.
The person with the product has the power
«A single cinema has no bargaining power,» says Marti. «If a single cinema doesn’t show the film, it makes no difference globally (author’s note: to the studio).» Ströhle’s even more straight-talking: «We accept the terms if we want to show the film.» Braun goes the furthest. He describes a system that’s shifted since the advent of digital technology, to the detriment of cinemas: «The distribution model still follows the logic of analogue film distribution and ignores today’s reality.»
What he means is that, in the past, the theatrical window was a long, exclusive period – months, sometimes even a year, before a film could be seen anywhere else. Today, audiences know that a film will be available on a streaming service or via video-on-demand (VoD) in just a few weeks. They no longer need to go to the cinema if they want to see the film.
But the distribution model continues as if nothing’s changed. Studios are mainly focused on maximising their earnings during the opening weekend, and are bringing the streaming release date closer and closer to the cinema release date in order to continue generating revenue through their own platforms or VoD services. The cinema operators? They no longer have any part in it.
Added to this is another mechanism that Braun calls «blind bookings». For major titles, distributors dictate the terms to cinemas in advance – distribution share, cinema allocation, number of screenings and run length – even before the cinema owners have seen the film. If they don’t agree, they won’t get the film. «The risk for cinemas, which is inherent in every film release, is further exacerbated when distributors demand a block booking lasting several weeks,» Braun writes to me.
And if they reject these terms? Marti: «It’s entirely possible that if we can’t agree on the terms, the cinema won’t get the film.» Braun also makes a dry remark directed at distributors: «Distributors would probably put it the other way round – cinemas that aren’t willing to meet their terms don’t believe in the success of their film. So they don’t deserve it either.»
The theatrical distribution model still follows the logic of analogue film distribution and ignores today’s reality – to the advantage of distributors.
And what about Pathé? The international group – which, incidentally, not only operates cinemas but also acts as a distributor in Switzerland, just like Neugass Kino AG – is refraining from publicly attacking its key partners. This is perhaps the most honest statement of all. The larger the chain, the more dependent it is on the system, and the quieter its voice.
I'm slowly starting to see a pattern. The small, independent cinemas like Riffraff, Korso and Kino Thun shout the loudest. They have the least to lose and the most to say. The large chain, on the other hand, remains silent or evades the question. That’s not a criticism; it’s a reality that Tom Rothman so eloquently decried at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, without mentioning that he himself is part of it.
Broken seats, loud IMAX – and an uncomfortable question
One reader reported torn seats, dirt and food scraps – «all that even though I’d shelled out 23 Swiss francs». The responses of the cinema operators vary.
Marti defends the industry, saying venues are cleaned between shows, and broken furniture is replaced within minutes. He also gives examples of innovative events like dining and film experiences, knit and watch sessions, baby-friendly shows and senior screenings. Epelbaum explains the financial logic. Following the costly digitisation process that began in 2010 and the blow dealt by the Coronavirus pandemic, many cinemas have been left with little room for investment. «It’s a bit of a balancing act. A new POS system? New chairs? New projector? More staff? It’s almost impossible to do all of that at once.»
Braun asks the question that no one else dares to ask: «What kind of audience lets cinemas wind up in this type of situation?» It sounds provocative. But he’s not entirely wrong – respect isn’t a one-way street.
Source: Shutterstock
Regarding how loud IMAX is – a recurring topic in my Community – everyone confirms the same thing, which is that the studios provide specific volume recommendations. There are sometimes even specifications that operators are obliged to comply with. Marti’s sympathetic: «For many Swiss customers, it’s loud – sometimes too loud.»
Even Pathé deliberately plays its films at a lower volume than the studios recommend, because US standards lead to complaints in Europe. Braun doesn’t sugarcoat it: «If you need earplugs to watch an IMAX title, that’s going too far.»
30 per cent fewer film-goers – are cinemas dying out?
Time and again, I read comments below my articles about how streaming, better TVs and more affordable home cinema setups are making real cinemas a less appealing prospect. This makes me wonder, are cinemas losing the battle against the comfort of our own home?
All of the cinema owners respond with a resounding «no», but for different reasons. Marti suggests, «you can buy frozen lasagne at a filling station and heat it up in the microwave – or you can go out to an Italian restaurant with your loved ones.» Ströhle points out something cinemas offer that the couch never can: «The shared social experience, which is becoming increasingly important in a society where loneliness is on the rise.» Epelbaum: «As long as we want to immerse ourselves in stories together, the couch isn’t a cultural alternative.»
Interesting. Jon Favreau, creator of The Mandalorian, also explained to me in a recent interview how everyone now has their own algorithm, their own feed and watches shows on their own. Cinema, on the other hand, when it works, is the exact opposite of this – a shared space, a shared experience.
Braun puts it most elegantly: «By going to the cinema, you’re making a conscious choice to do without the pause button or the second screen, which would always be available at home. Cinema’s deliberate, immersive and therefore liberating.»
One reader had canceled his Pathé plan and instead invested in a 77-inch OLED TV with an Atmos sound system. What do cinema owners say to someone who simply no longer needs the cinema? Braun: «That’s entirely up to them. Others are just as passionate about watching films in cinemas.» Ströhle, with a touch of sarcasm: «It’s wonderful to live in a country where we can make decisions like this.»
We have about 30 per cent fewer film-goers than before the pandemic – and we can really feel it.
They both say the same thing, that cinema doesn’t have to prove itself to everyone, only to the people who want to come. Even though there are fewer and fewer of them, something that most of the cinema operators confirmed to me. «We have about 30 per cent fewer film-goers than before the pandemic – and we can really feel it. Despite the growing population, we’re selling fewer tickets every year,» Marti explains. At the same time, he also says, «we’ve started 2026 with figures more than 25 per cent better than this time last year.» He explains why – for the first time since the pandemic, there’s a full lineup of major titles to entice audiences again.
Braun makes an important distinction: «Over the past two years, audience numbers have been declining nationwide. But in our cinemas, they’ve been rising steadily for the last five years.» And he points out who’s gaining ground: «It’s the independent cinemas that are set apart by their close connection to audiences and their diverse programming.»
Ströhle, who only opened his Korso cinema in Fribourg in September 2024, is seeing growing audience numbers: «So far, no medium has gone extinct,» he says dryly. «We still go to concerts and turn on the TV.»
What needs to change – and what will stay the same
Finally, I asked everyone what structural changes would be needed to draw people back to cinemas. For them. For me. For audiences. The answers are revealing – including in what they don’t say.
Marti, for example, sees the big picture: «The established system has worked for many decades, but whether it will be suitable for the next few decades is the crucial question.» Braun’s more direct: «When it comes to terms, studios and distributors need to meet the cinemas, and therefore audiences, halfway.» Ströhle, on the other hand, describes his own model: 500 events over 18 months, ranging from tango to classic films. He sees the cinema not merely as a place to watch films, but as a cultural hub.
Frank Braun has the final say. I ask him what's keeping him from giving up.
«I’m always amazed by the impact a film has at the cinema. It makes me part of a close-knit community that’s searching for the same thing. It expands my perception. Whether I’m moved, frightened, shaken, or amused – I may be sitting still in my seat, but my mind and heart are transported on a journey.»
And then: «Whether cinemas make the world a better place is a matter of debate. They definitely improve mine, anyway.»
I write about technology as if it were cinema, and about films as if they were real life. Between bits and blockbusters, I’m after stories that move people, not just generate clicks. And yes – sometimes I listen to film scores louder than I probably should.
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show all
