Surprise! Consumers aren't that willing to pay more for 3D

By Sarah Sluis

3D movies have been bringing in a lot of money for studios, enough to stem the tide of decreasing theatre attendance. But perhaps the studios should rethink their strategy, and charge their customers less money for more movie. At least that's what the latest study from PricewaterhouseCoopers says. According to a poll they cite, 77% of people will not pay a surcharge of $4 or more.

I'm not surprised. Though the perks of writing about film means not having to fork over your credit card to see a movie, earlier this year I reviewed the not-so-great 3D Wes Craven movie My Soul to Take at the Regal Union Square in New York, NY, where the ticket price, including the 3D surcharge, added up to $17.50. That kind of moola is worth it for a spectacle like Avatar, but for a run-of-the-mill horror flick, which didn't even do cool things with 3D to make it worth my extra money? Nope.

If so many people are unwilling to pay for 3D, why is 50-70% of box-office revenue coming from 3D screens? Many in the movie business cite the 80-20 rule: 80% of ticket sales come from 20% of the people. Frequent moviegoers are a breed of their own, attending cinemas regularly and often being less discriminating about the content since they're seeing so many movies. Behemoths like Avatar draw in the less-frequent moviegoers, who only go to movies for special occasions. People in both of these groups can justify spending extra to see Toy Story 3 or Alice in Wonderland in 3D. However, it's unlikely that this will hold. There are forty films coming out next year in 3D, and I doubt that all of them will be worth the higher ticket price.

The report hints that 3D surcharges are untenable, but I don't agree. Sure, I'd like to see 3D movies with no surcharge (and if you're choosing between two movies you're interested in equally, wouldn't the 3D one win if it were the same price?), but I would also feel fine with a pared-down surcharge of a dollar or two.

While paying more to see a movie in 3D makes sense for big, must-see pictures, it's unlikely that the forty 3D films coming out next year will live up to their promise. As I check Fandango, tickets for The Green Hornet are going for $13, The Green Hornet 3D is going for $17.50, and The Green Hornet 3D IMAX will run you $19, before popcorn. For a family of four (2 adults, 2 children), that would run $45 for basic, $62 for 3D, and $69 for 3D IMAX, 35% more than seeing the comic book film in 2D. Once the novelty of 3D wears off, will people choose to add 3D glasses to their outing or the popcorn combo deluxe?