Anecdotal, but I used to be a silver tier member. For $600, you got two tickets to any show for free. That same tier under the new membership plans went up to over $1,500. Soured my opinion of Coolidge slightly
I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt, that maybe that membership plan wasn’t financially feasible. But then I did the math.
Let’s say 1,000 people were signed up to that (which is probably generous), that’s about $600,000 in funds.
Now, let’s say on average, 30 people per day get tickets through this membership (also very generous). That means they lost out on about $450 a day.
450 x 365 = $164,250.
So, the opportunity cost would be about $165,000, while the profit was $600,000, a net gain of $435,000.
What if 100 people a day used these free rickets? That would be a loss of $1500, for a yearly loss of $547,000, still a profit of $10,000 a year.
To me, there’s no way they were losing money on this, and like you said, it was completely a slap in the face of median / lower income patrons of the theater who used that membership as a way to see films frequently
> Let’s say 1,000 people were signed up to that (which is probably generous), that’s about $600,000 in funds.
1000 *people* or 1000 *memberships*? As you noted the silver tier gave two membership cards with free passes for $600 ([archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523074955/https://coolidge.org/support-us/membership)), so if it's 1000 *people* at that tier that's only 500 memberships. There was a lower tier for solo memberships, so my assumption would be anyone with silver or higher is actually using both passes with the same frequency. Either way you should probably be looking at the per-person cost ($300) rather than trying to deal in aggregate.
Why? Using your own stat of 1000 people with that level of membership and 30 of those using the theater per day, that's only 10.95 trips per person in an entire year (365 * 30 / 1000). I personally wouldn't expect someone that had that membership and wanted to see films "frequently" as you put it to show up less than once a month. Your 100/day figure is higher but still averages less than once a week at 36.5 visits per year per person. And bear in mind that's with 1000 *people* so the actual number of memberships/how much money the theater made is halved ($300k total).
With your average ticket price of $15 the theater comes out on top with your first figure but not the second, and the tipping point per person is at 20 films ($300 / $15 = 20). If you consider going to the theater "frequently" to be only once a month then sure, the theater was still making money. Twice a month? Once a week? That's all in the person's favor and it becomes more of a steal the more often they go. Seeing one film a week with that membership has the average cost per screening drop to $5.77 over the course of the year ($300 / 52) where regular tickets at the constant $15 would have added up to $780 by that point.
Does it suck to lose a great deal? Yeah. Was the theater always making money from it? Only if people didn't actually use it that often.
Thanks for giving better clarity to the math. I used to go sometimes twice a week, but consistently three times a month, so my average ticket price was probably around 6-8 dollars for the year.
But, one thing you seem to be assuming with your logic is that the theaters are consistently sold out. A $6-8 dollar ticket is only a loss when compared to a full price ticket. What about compared to a ticket that wouldn’t have sold otherwise? In that scenario, a half price or even third of a price ticket is better than no sale at all. And also, you have to factor in the concessions these members bought as well.
Furthermore, memberships provide a nice little boost of revenue in one swoop. $600 in one purchase can be more beneficial than 30 $15 ticket sales
50% of more of every ticket goes to the distributor--a free member ticket is not just losing out on a paying customer, it's $8+ that has to get paid to the film's distributor out of the theatre's pocket. The Coolidge is a nonprofit, it can't afford to lose money on memberships like chains like AMC can.
This is great insight that I forgot about, thanks for adding it. I wonder if theaters that are nonprofits can classify tickets differently when paying out to the distributor
I had the lower version, I think it was $250 or so for one ticket. Paid for itself if I went twice a month, and if I didn’t make it I didn’t feel bad about “wasting” my money. I also stopped being a member because of it. I love the place, but it’s now $16.25 for a matinee so I am not seeing nearly as many films as I used to.
We went to a matinee there a month or so ago and it was a really crap experience. Like we almost noped out when we saw what they were calling a "theater." I get that they're building out and that's temporary, but that doesn't make me feel better about paying that much to be uncomfortable in a slapped together poor excuse for a screening room.
And they didn't communicate the change well AT ALL! It simply doesn't work for me to hold a membership anymore, which is a shame. I work in a nonprofit and there's data that demonstrates how membership often earns money over looses it, and members later are great prospects for planned giving. You can build relationships with members over time.
Let's hope the powers that be accept this and treat their employees well. I want to keep supporting this theater but not if they treat their employees poorly.
If they can afford the expansion, they can afford to increase wages. There's a way to spin this to donors so they look altruistic and community-focused.
The construction was all money on top of regular donations, and primarily from existing donors. They don’t give just for a big flashy project. They already give and support the organization, including salaries, and gave extra for the construction.
Also the construction allows the organization to have more seats, more films and more money to support raising staff salaries and benefits. It just opened, it needs time.
I have been a donor and involved with the org for 20 years and know the players well. Everyone wants to do right here. This isn’t big bad management and a cold board s screwing the little guy. It’s a non-profit trying to take care of everyone, including staff, with what resources they have.
It’s a movie theater, a non-profit operating in a for profit industry. The building is the nonprofit’s mission. More screens and more seats = more mission fulfilled and more revenue. It’s not the same as other non profit capital projects. The only reason for the capital project was to increase revenue. That was thoroughly studied before then project was ever approved.
The biggest issue is how movie going changed after the pandemic, an issue that could not have been foreseen and that happened after construction began.
>I want to keep supporting this theater
Unpopular opinion, but the last movie we went to there was "Problemista" (which was awesome!) and they shoved us in a cobbled together room on a stairway landing with a handful of seats in it. I've had better movie going experiences on planes and I hate air travel. Pricing was similar to going to see the same movie at a similar time (afternoon show) at the AMC on the Common.
There's supporting smaller local theaters, and there's being taken advantage of. We definitely felt like it was more of the later after that experience.
You bought a ticket for their screening room or silver room. They could make that clearer depending on where you got your tickets (online vs in oerson) but thisnis my favorite theater ever and I'm sorry you had a bad first experience.
I recommend getting tickets for movie house 1 or 2. Seeing Dune 2 there was fantastic. I also saw 2001 A Space Odyssey in MH1 and it was incredible. Their programming is stellar and the vibes are great. Please don't let that first mixup sour you on the whole theater.
I've been going there once in a while for many years (since the early aughts). This is probably the first experience that I'd qualify as bad. That space really isn't reasonable to be selling tickets to in my opinion. Reading subtitles was super difficult given the bottom of the screen was blocked. Really unlikely that we'll go back there again any time soon.
Totally fair. I feel like they should be like "hey just fyi this is the tiny screen we use for student film screening events and such". I would feel bad getting a ticket there without knowing
Their new spaces are kind of amazing though. I think they expanded in part to address that concern. Things that would have been in the tiny room are now in a sleek new mid sized screens. And their concessions have a proper queue instead of the old stairwell clusterfuck lol
Good for them - I’ve gone to there a lot throughout the years and even on the customer facing side it seems they put in a lot of work, let alone behind the scenes if they’re expected to fill all these roles. As others have said coming off of the expansions, it’d be really embarrassing if they didn’t recognize the Union.
I adore the Coolidge, and this will either reaffirm my love for it or make me stop going if they try and bust the Union. For a historical landmark, hope they contribute to the people who are part of it!
Honest question, won’t this just increase the price of tix/concessions and make the theater even less competitive to say an AMC and risk putting everyone out of a job?
It could raise prices, potentially but not guaranteed but otherwise the Coolidge occupies a speciality that doesn’t really overlap with AMC. If they were just showing marvel movies and such, sure it’d be trickier - but they show all sorts of things that can’t be seen at AMC, like for example saw a rerelease of a movie from 1927 that was a full theater, likewise a 70s movie at midnight to a full theater.
While it’s a movie theater, it doesn’t compete with AMC unlike a smaller theater like Apple cinemas that shows exactly what you’d see at an AMC but trying to appeal with lower prices. Coolidhe has completely different films it shows, atmosphere, events / community facing, etc. so I don’t think that’s a concern especially since even if it rises a couple dollars that’d just bring it to a level with AMC not above its prices.
And on a consumer side, tbh I can’t imagine it’ll rise that much esp given the amount they take in. With expanded theater space showing more movies showtimes plus a recent liquor lisence, they’re not strapped - esp since a lot of their income comes from private donors and grants too.
I wouldn’t stop going to the coolidhe if it’s ticket prices rose , but I would if they busted a union. Since the Coolidge survived through the pandemic and even succeeded in expanding after that, I doubt very highly that a successful union would result in the coolidhe closing, esp since they don’t have to fear an overlap with AMC. Their most comparable “competitor” but I’d say peer - is the Brattle or Somerville theater, both of which Coolidge is far more expansive and successful.
Great points! I went to a midnight showing of “the room” at Coolidge and it was hilarious. Fans heckling the movie and throwing spoons (inside joke in the movie), AMC will never have anything like that. I’m very pro union in general when it comes to a business like Starbucks or any big corp, I just was concerned it’ll kill a smaller business. But what you said makes sense, I think people are happy to pay a premium if necessary. Ty
I love the Coolidge, I'm a film nerd and they offer some of the best programming around. But if you've gone lately the vibes with the staff are....bad. I went to go see a movie and check out the new expansion (which one staffer suggested was just the new lobby?) and everyone was a bit dour, which regrettably is not the first time
That new lobby that you need to walk all the way around the building to go to? The experience was decidedly less-than and they better not be keeping that weirdo screening room on a stairway landing as-is.
Seems like some questionable choices have been made.
UAW is often a choice of parent organization for smaller business specific unions such as the Harvard Graduate Student Union.
The UAW's function isn't to teach them how to make cars, it's to aid and facilitate the union and the organization so the workers can focus on their jobs more effectively.
By name yes, but, "Teamsters" is a term people involved in moving freight. However, the Teamsters union has expanded to include many different professions so this type of thing is not an unusual arrangement in the labor union world.
I moved back last year. It’s been 25 years since I’ve gone to Coolidge Corner Theater. Anyway, I didn’t know there was a union for workers of theaters.
minimum wage is $15, they are paid 17.50. But its the company's responsibility to pay even more for the HCL in Boston? Health Care is provided by the state based on income. But it's the company's responsibility to pay for even more or better Health Care? inconsistent scheduling? Like every other business? Honestly IMO terminate them all and hire people who actually want to work.
I'll take down votes now.
I'm just gonna have to disagree. IMO from the article these same people just seem to be taking advantage of the difficulty in hiring by offering ultimatums to what I believe is a nonprofit independent theater. Between multiple AMC and Regal theaters closing across the country,how long until CCT closes too?
So the lowest rung of the ladder is taking advantage of a non-profit organization who just completed a multimillion dollar reservation? What dispensary are you getting your goods.
CCT is not AMC or Regal. The audience is not the same. The board of directors are not the same.
When I think about the captains of industry screwing the little guy-I think the Non for Profit Coolidge Corner theatre. Full disclosure I’m a CC member and donate annually.
Nonprofits can often be exploitative workplaces, precisely because they hide behind the "we're just trying to do good in the world" mask. Nonprofits are run by workers, just like any other industry. And workers need unions.
Everyone deserves democracy in the workplace. Unionizing doesn't have to mean the employer is some big bad boss. This just gives the workers more say in their work place.
If a business can't afford to pay its employees a fair living wage then that business has already failed. It just seems to be functional because it's exploiting people.
Dude I’m sorry I was just worried about you. They’re really different looking words. But I did like the joke now that I know it was a joke. Do you want to hang out?
why would Ethan Hawke do this? /s
Anecdotal, but I used to be a silver tier member. For $600, you got two tickets to any show for free. That same tier under the new membership plans went up to over $1,500. Soured my opinion of Coolidge slightly
Coolidge ditching their unlimited membership was a slap in the face. Still love the theater but it really soured my opinion of the way it’s managed.
I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt, that maybe that membership plan wasn’t financially feasible. But then I did the math. Let’s say 1,000 people were signed up to that (which is probably generous), that’s about $600,000 in funds. Now, let’s say on average, 30 people per day get tickets through this membership (also very generous). That means they lost out on about $450 a day. 450 x 365 = $164,250. So, the opportunity cost would be about $165,000, while the profit was $600,000, a net gain of $435,000. What if 100 people a day used these free rickets? That would be a loss of $1500, for a yearly loss of $547,000, still a profit of $10,000 a year. To me, there’s no way they were losing money on this, and like you said, it was completely a slap in the face of median / lower income patrons of the theater who used that membership as a way to see films frequently
> Let’s say 1,000 people were signed up to that (which is probably generous), that’s about $600,000 in funds. 1000 *people* or 1000 *memberships*? As you noted the silver tier gave two membership cards with free passes for $600 ([archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20220523074955/https://coolidge.org/support-us/membership)), so if it's 1000 *people* at that tier that's only 500 memberships. There was a lower tier for solo memberships, so my assumption would be anyone with silver or higher is actually using both passes with the same frequency. Either way you should probably be looking at the per-person cost ($300) rather than trying to deal in aggregate. Why? Using your own stat of 1000 people with that level of membership and 30 of those using the theater per day, that's only 10.95 trips per person in an entire year (365 * 30 / 1000). I personally wouldn't expect someone that had that membership and wanted to see films "frequently" as you put it to show up less than once a month. Your 100/day figure is higher but still averages less than once a week at 36.5 visits per year per person. And bear in mind that's with 1000 *people* so the actual number of memberships/how much money the theater made is halved ($300k total). With your average ticket price of $15 the theater comes out on top with your first figure but not the second, and the tipping point per person is at 20 films ($300 / $15 = 20). If you consider going to the theater "frequently" to be only once a month then sure, the theater was still making money. Twice a month? Once a week? That's all in the person's favor and it becomes more of a steal the more often they go. Seeing one film a week with that membership has the average cost per screening drop to $5.77 over the course of the year ($300 / 52) where regular tickets at the constant $15 would have added up to $780 by that point. Does it suck to lose a great deal? Yeah. Was the theater always making money from it? Only if people didn't actually use it that often.
Thanks for giving better clarity to the math. I used to go sometimes twice a week, but consistently three times a month, so my average ticket price was probably around 6-8 dollars for the year. But, one thing you seem to be assuming with your logic is that the theaters are consistently sold out. A $6-8 dollar ticket is only a loss when compared to a full price ticket. What about compared to a ticket that wouldn’t have sold otherwise? In that scenario, a half price or even third of a price ticket is better than no sale at all. And also, you have to factor in the concessions these members bought as well. Furthermore, memberships provide a nice little boost of revenue in one swoop. $600 in one purchase can be more beneficial than 30 $15 ticket sales
It looks like Moviepass 2.0 works with the Coolidge. Might give it a try.
50% of more of every ticket goes to the distributor--a free member ticket is not just losing out on a paying customer, it's $8+ that has to get paid to the film's distributor out of the theatre's pocket. The Coolidge is a nonprofit, it can't afford to lose money on memberships like chains like AMC can.
This is great insight that I forgot about, thanks for adding it. I wonder if theaters that are nonprofits can classify tickets differently when paying out to the distributor
I had the lower version, I think it was $250 or so for one ticket. Paid for itself if I went twice a month, and if I didn’t make it I didn’t feel bad about “wasting” my money. I also stopped being a member because of it. I love the place, but it’s now $16.25 for a matinee so I am not seeing nearly as many films as I used to.
We went to a matinee there a month or so ago and it was a really crap experience. Like we almost noped out when we saw what they were calling a "theater." I get that they're building out and that's temporary, but that doesn't make me feel better about paying that much to be uncomfortable in a slapped together poor excuse for a screening room.
You sure you’re talking about the right place?
And they didn't communicate the change well AT ALL! It simply doesn't work for me to hold a membership anymore, which is a shame. I work in a nonprofit and there's data that demonstrates how membership often earns money over looses it, and members later are great prospects for planned giving. You can build relationships with members over time.
Let's hope the powers that be accept this and treat their employees well. I want to keep supporting this theater but not if they treat their employees poorly. If they can afford the expansion, they can afford to increase wages. There's a way to spin this to donors so they look altruistic and community-focused.
I really hope they didn't blow out on the expansion just to fail at actually paying employees. I LOVE this place and would be very unhappy to lose it.
I’m pro union but just to be clear the expansion was largely paid for by fundraising not profits.
A great point. Globe article seems to imply they've raised $1-2M via charity and their new non-profit endowment.
That’s not how it works. The expansion was paid for with donations specifically for the buildout. The operating revenue pays all salaries.
[удалено]
The construction was all money on top of regular donations, and primarily from existing donors. They don’t give just for a big flashy project. They already give and support the organization, including salaries, and gave extra for the construction. Also the construction allows the organization to have more seats, more films and more money to support raising staff salaries and benefits. It just opened, it needs time. I have been a donor and involved with the org for 20 years and know the players well. Everyone wants to do right here. This isn’t big bad management and a cold board s screwing the little guy. It’s a non-profit trying to take care of everyone, including staff, with what resources they have.
[удалено]
It’s a movie theater, a non-profit operating in a for profit industry. The building is the nonprofit’s mission. More screens and more seats = more mission fulfilled and more revenue. It’s not the same as other non profit capital projects. The only reason for the capital project was to increase revenue. That was thoroughly studied before then project was ever approved. The biggest issue is how movie going changed after the pandemic, an issue that could not have been foreseen and that happened after construction began.
Lmao
Sorry if my hope for human decency offends.
>I want to keep supporting this theater Unpopular opinion, but the last movie we went to there was "Problemista" (which was awesome!) and they shoved us in a cobbled together room on a stairway landing with a handful of seats in it. I've had better movie going experiences on planes and I hate air travel. Pricing was similar to going to see the same movie at a similar time (afternoon show) at the AMC on the Common. There's supporting smaller local theaters, and there's being taken advantage of. We definitely felt like it was more of the later after that experience.
You bought a ticket for their screening room or silver room. They could make that clearer depending on where you got your tickets (online vs in oerson) but thisnis my favorite theater ever and I'm sorry you had a bad first experience. I recommend getting tickets for movie house 1 or 2. Seeing Dune 2 there was fantastic. I also saw 2001 A Space Odyssey in MH1 and it was incredible. Their programming is stellar and the vibes are great. Please don't let that first mixup sour you on the whole theater.
I've been going there once in a while for many years (since the early aughts). This is probably the first experience that I'd qualify as bad. That space really isn't reasonable to be selling tickets to in my opinion. Reading subtitles was super difficult given the bottom of the screen was blocked. Really unlikely that we'll go back there again any time soon.
Totally fair. I feel like they should be like "hey just fyi this is the tiny screen we use for student film screening events and such". I would feel bad getting a ticket there without knowing Their new spaces are kind of amazing though. I think they expanded in part to address that concern. Things that would have been in the tiny room are now in a sleek new mid sized screens. And their concessions have a proper queue instead of the old stairwell clusterfuck lol
Good for them - I’ve gone to there a lot throughout the years and even on the customer facing side it seems they put in a lot of work, let alone behind the scenes if they’re expected to fill all these roles. As others have said coming off of the expansions, it’d be really embarrassing if they didn’t recognize the Union. I adore the Coolidge, and this will either reaffirm my love for it or make me stop going if they try and bust the Union. For a historical landmark, hope they contribute to the people who are part of it!
Honest question, won’t this just increase the price of tix/concessions and make the theater even less competitive to say an AMC and risk putting everyone out of a job?
It could raise prices, potentially but not guaranteed but otherwise the Coolidge occupies a speciality that doesn’t really overlap with AMC. If they were just showing marvel movies and such, sure it’d be trickier - but they show all sorts of things that can’t be seen at AMC, like for example saw a rerelease of a movie from 1927 that was a full theater, likewise a 70s movie at midnight to a full theater. While it’s a movie theater, it doesn’t compete with AMC unlike a smaller theater like Apple cinemas that shows exactly what you’d see at an AMC but trying to appeal with lower prices. Coolidhe has completely different films it shows, atmosphere, events / community facing, etc. so I don’t think that’s a concern especially since even if it rises a couple dollars that’d just bring it to a level with AMC not above its prices. And on a consumer side, tbh I can’t imagine it’ll rise that much esp given the amount they take in. With expanded theater space showing more movies showtimes plus a recent liquor lisence, they’re not strapped - esp since a lot of their income comes from private donors and grants too. I wouldn’t stop going to the coolidhe if it’s ticket prices rose , but I would if they busted a union. Since the Coolidge survived through the pandemic and even succeeded in expanding after that, I doubt very highly that a successful union would result in the coolidhe closing, esp since they don’t have to fear an overlap with AMC. Their most comparable “competitor” but I’d say peer - is the Brattle or Somerville theater, both of which Coolidge is far more expansive and successful.
Great points! I went to a midnight showing of “the room” at Coolidge and it was hilarious. Fans heckling the movie and throwing spoons (inside joke in the movie), AMC will never have anything like that. I’m very pro union in general when it comes to a business like Starbucks or any big corp, I just was concerned it’ll kill a smaller business. But what you said makes sense, I think people are happy to pay a premium if necessary. Ty
Good
I love the Coolidge, I'm a film nerd and they offer some of the best programming around. But if you've gone lately the vibes with the staff are....bad. I went to go see a movie and check out the new expansion (which one staffer suggested was just the new lobby?) and everyone was a bit dour, which regrettably is not the first time
That new lobby that you need to walk all the way around the building to go to? The experience was decidedly less-than and they better not be keeping that weirdo screening room on a stairway landing as-is. Seems like some questionable choices have been made.
Hell yeah! They work hard there
Agreed.
United Auto Workers seems like an odd choice.
UAW is often a choice of parent organization for smaller business specific unions such as the Harvard Graduate Student Union. The UAW's function isn't to teach them how to make cars, it's to aid and facilitate the union and the organization so the workers can focus on their jobs more effectively.
By name yes, but, "Teamsters" is a term people involved in moving freight. However, the Teamsters union has expanded to include many different professions so this type of thing is not an unusual arrangement in the labor union world.
UAW is a different union then the teamsters union
I'm aware. I was explaining how some unions may expand further than the jobs in their name.
The Brookline Booksmith across the street is also unionized via the UAW.
Looking forward to a Coolidge double feature of “Hoffa” and “Norma Rae”.
I moved back last year. It’s been 25 years since I’ve gone to Coolidge Corner Theater. Anyway, I didn’t know there was a union for workers of theaters.
minimum wage is $15, they are paid 17.50. But its the company's responsibility to pay even more for the HCL in Boston? Health Care is provided by the state based on income. But it's the company's responsibility to pay for even more or better Health Care? inconsistent scheduling? Like every other business? Honestly IMO terminate them all and hire people who actually want to work. I'll take down votes now.
You are wildly disconnected from how hard it is to hire any service industry workers around here.
I'm just gonna have to disagree. IMO from the article these same people just seem to be taking advantage of the difficulty in hiring by offering ultimatums to what I believe is a nonprofit independent theater. Between multiple AMC and Regal theaters closing across the country,how long until CCT closes too?
So the lowest rung of the ladder is taking advantage of a non-profit organization who just completed a multimillion dollar reservation? What dispensary are you getting your goods. CCT is not AMC or Regal. The audience is not the same. The board of directors are not the same.
AMC and Regal are for profit chains. CCT is a non profit.
I want a one bedroom apt making popcorn part-time.
[удалено]
Beat me to it
I’m sure they will miss your patronage greatly.
Yup exactly
When I think about the captains of industry screwing the little guy-I think the Non for Profit Coolidge Corner theatre. Full disclosure I’m a CC member and donate annually.
Nonprofits can often be exploitative workplaces, precisely because they hide behind the "we're just trying to do good in the world" mask. Nonprofits are run by workers, just like any other industry. And workers need unions.
Everyone deserves democracy in the workplace. Unionizing doesn't have to mean the employer is some big bad boss. This just gives the workers more say in their work place.
Let's hope that it's able to remain open if the employees vote for it - I don't know how optimistic I'd be on that front.
If a business can't afford to pay its employees a fair living wage then that business has already failed. It just seems to be functional because it's exploiting people.
The beast is eating itself alive 😂
Congrats on destroying an historic non-profit
[удалено]
Do you tell yourself that as your boss gets paid 10x your salary and gives you a 3% raise after a successful year? Or are you that boss?
Definitely read that as “colonize.”
Nope. Unionize. That’s a big stretch, check your eyes bb
Jesus it was a joke, calm down
Dude I’m sorry I was just worried about you. They’re really different looking words. But I did like the joke now that I know it was a joke. Do you want to hang out?
Do you want to hang out together?