Re cineworld : IS THIS LEGAL

I can't join in with the dissenting voices here.

My local cineworld is great and the value I get from my unlimited card means that I don't have a problem with buying a drink. I don't bother with food much as I prefer to get a takeaway afterwarRAB.....
 
They do have notices, but IIRC they make no mention of searches.

Other publicity from Cineworld asks people to "avoid" bring bags to the cinema, but again, doesn't mention searches.

In fairness to CW, I haven't seen that many searches, and even fewer confiscations. West India Quay CW has a security guard, but he doesn't do much more than wave people through. I went to Enfield CW and their security guard had a search table and was actively searching every bag. When I asked what he was looking for, he said, "knives". Nuff said, really.
 
I think it creates some interesting moral ambiguities when companies start behaving in ways that consumers find "difficult" or counter-intuitive.

For as long as I have been going to cinemas and theatres, you have been allowed to bring your own refreshments, as long as there was no additional nuisance value to what you brought in. That seems like a simple paradigm, especially given the high price of cinema food and drink.

Now, a few posts ago, someone suggested that bringing in your own stuff, against the company's policy was "theft". Which, whilst I disagree, is an interesting angle.

I suppose there must be a long list of misdemeanours that have negotiable morality - from speeding to smuggling in your own refreshment to the cinema via not paying on the train unless you absolutely have to.
 
Well, MacDonalRAB and Burger et al (and most other "snack bars" I would imagine) seem to turn a decent profit without having to show movies either. LOL Perhaps their business models are even simpler.


Oh dear, I think you should reconsider trying to teach economics to me. I have run many successful businesses over the years, including some very profitable restaurants. For many businesses, the cost centre which causes the biggest drain on resources is marketing. The more customers you retain, the less one has to spend on finding new ones. Regular and loyal customer will come to you when they need you and will be the ones who help you through the tougher times. You should really credit customer with far more intelligence than you allow. They can spot arrogance a mile off. They know when they are not being treated with the respect they feel they deserve. If they are not, they will always go somewhere else. I have seen one or two restaurants who have employed the policy you have suggested, their favourite marketing slogans tend to be, "under new management."



P.S. Diners who do not drink alcohol, turn over quicker (by about thirty per cent). They tend to generate almost, or as much profit per table per night, as those who drink alcohol.
 
That is all very subjective though, isn't it?

Plus, it's not about 'sides', it's about potential perceptions.

First, consider that only a certain small proportion of people will be moved to post any kind of response in the thread, whether positively or negatively.

I work in marketing and if I saw this thread about my company I would be mortified and would be taking steps to rectify it instantly, including registering and PMing posters who were negatively affected by the bisiness and attempting to resolve their issues. I would be extremely worried about how this thread - and any like it - could adversely affect my business.

Think about the skim-readers - they'll just read the initial post, which is a negative reflection of the business - there'll be more of those than people who are moved to post in the thread too, and they will be quite ignorant to the positive posts within the thread - instant negative touchpoint for potentially thousanRAB of people for Cineworld and things like that stick in people's heaRAB.

Same for the title - people will skim-read the site and see the title and instantly think that Cineworld are doing something illegal without even seeing what is in the thread. Negative touchpoint that sticks in someone's head (even though it actually isn't expressly stated in the title whether Cineworld are doing something illegal!).

It's the Daily Mail culture we live in and is potentially damaging to any company to experience things like this online - especially one that seems so poor in communicating to it's customer base already and therefore is possibly ill-equipped to deal with such an event.
 
Thye did not specify the search but it was looking for food and not piracy and they cant take a mobile phone off you as it is a personal posession.


And they dont sell what I want to eat either.


Sorry I am going in to posting meltdown here:o
 
Have asked for the duty manager's explanation (who couldn't be found at the time - probably bunked off early) - IF Cineworld Customer Services get back to me.
 
As I said, they've gone up in my estimation since reading this thread. If it was an equal toss-up between Showcase and Cineworld, I'd now choose Cineworld, whereas before I couldn't care less - because Cineworld have shown that they are making a stand against trouble-making members of the public. I wonder whether Showcase and Odeon will show the same strength? Well done Cineworld - and thanks to the OP for bringing this to our attention.
 
It's pretty much been said already, but a cinema is private property and therefore the owners can enforce rules about what can and cannot be brought onto their premises. They cannot forcibly search you, as this would be illegal, but they can ask for your permission to search and if you refuse, they can simply turn you away from the cinema.

Its no different than demanding to see ID. You are not under any legal obligation to show them your ID (nor are you under any legal obligation to carry ID) but they can turn you away if you refuse to show them.

Of course, if you think the search was handled tactlessly, you can complain to the management about it. But seeing as the cinema industry is not a public servie, there's no government body (eg. ofsted, ofcom) to complain to if the cinema refuses to care. All you can do then is take your business elsewhere.






And I have no respect for either of you for this. If you think it is acceptable to use someone else's property - a property that has been opened to the public for business purposes and requires money to maintain - then you are as good as stealing from those businesses by taking up the space that could be used by paying customers.

Do you think the world owes you something? If you can't afford pub or restaurant prices, stay at home! You are as good as a trespasser doing this. It's typical that someone would complain about being insulted and embarrassed for getting searched in a cinema (and getting caught out trying to break the rules) and at the same time holding someone in high regard for showing no respect to working men and women.

Personally, I'm betting you're both a pair of immature teenagers. I'd like to think that most people still grow out of this inconsiderate type of attitude by the time they mature to adulthood (and I'm glad to know that there are still many teenegers who are also mature enough to not think this is "cool," too)
 
Well if you want to equate burgers and chips to popcorn, chocolate and coke, be my guest. I wouldn't and I guess several other successful businesses wouldn't, but there you go. Obviously, invading a saturated market-segment (such as fast-food) is a good business strategy that cinemas should get involved with. It's not like saturation is a term used in business economics and exists in the real world. Everyone can just jump on the same business model and turn a profit. It worked for the "People" newspaper when they tried to enter a saturated market :rolleyes: (edit: actually, it wasn't the People. Can't even remember the name of the paper now - but I guess that goes to show how well they did at breaking into a saturated market. Man, I studied this sort of business economics at GCSE!!! Double-Edit: It was "Today," I was thinking of. Took me a while to find it!)

Heck, it's not like McDonalRAB or Burger King have ever used a movie to draw in customers, after all. Oh, wait a minute...

Film promotions to draw in customers. Pretty sure they do that. Seeing as their business model is so simple and amazing (as you suggest) it must be a total waste of resources for them to be spending the colossal amount of money it takes to secure such licenses. I wonder why they do it?



And yet, after all that, you go on to talk about the cost of marketing (ie. using something to draw in the punters to make a profit) being a heavy expense on a business. Could - possibly - cinemas have adjusted their business model to make profit out of the food and drinks, whilst using the films as a form of promotion to draw in the customers? Surely not!

You talk about knowing how to run a business, yet completely ignore supply and demand. If you have a wealth of loyal customers who spend good money with you, you don't need to worry about securing new customers who don't turn you a profit.

I'm not going to name restaurant names (because I'm a professional and I'm not into breaking client confidentiality), but I'm not talking about some out-of-the-way restaurants. These are highly-rated London restaurants. This is what they do and they are not "under new management."

As for customers turning over 30% faster if they don't drink alcohol, that's a typical useless statistic. If you make next-to-no money on food sales, then it doesn't matter if you get your table back 30% faster. The alcohol is marked up far in excess of that. Note the price I mentioned in my last post; that's a 350% uplift on an off-license price. The distributor cost will be even less (because those off-licenses will be turning a profit, too)

If a restaurant is only making a 5% profit on the food (10% if they're lucky), then a 30% turnover in customers leaving the restaurant doesn't make for good business, compared to a 350%+ profit margin on drinks.

Say what you want about running successful restaurants, the maths doesn't support you. My client hasn't run several successful restaurants; he owns five highly-rated and profitable restaurants and hasn't moved on to other ventures - just grown the one he has. Possibly because he knows how to provide a service in higher demand than he can supply and knows how to create a successful business model.

Based on the maths of income and not on... well, whatever you are basing your ideas on.

Of course, you could say that's just an argument from authority - but at least its a stable business built on accurate mathamtical statistics (as opposed to a stat that provides no information on profitability)

But regardless - where did we start? Oh, yes; on whether or not a cinema is actually making its significant profits on food and drink sales. I don't actually see anything you are suggesting that says otherwise - aside from "I don't see why they need to show movies if they make money off food;" a daft comment that ignores not only the marketing point you yourself make in the following paragraph - but the fact that existing businesses have to adapt to a changing market.

Unless you think existing cinema chains should wrap up the business they started in - ignore the marketing potential of their existing business - and try and break into another segment that is already saturated by large, multinational corporations. SounRAB like a profitable move that would allieviate any fears of their shareholders.

I guess I can see why you ended up running multiple "successful" businesses.


EDIT: Oh and before I go, I want to add these final two quotes, courtesy of Flyboy152's last two posts (not even massively separated!), in reference to the same point;





Hmmm. I'm finding it hard to accept the rest of your "facts," when you contradict your own experience so blatently in one post after the other. These can't both be true. I hope you are not making things up to try and make yourself sound right. It's not like this is THAT important a subject!!! (meant in all good humour. This is hardly war!)

FINAL ADDENDUM: Jeez, that was a tad longer than I'd hoped for! I think I've made my point clear enough at this point (along with the fact that I'm holding a general middle-ground on the legality of the matter). I'm not going to waste more time on posting in this magntiude on the subject. Already said that I think a bottle of water is pushing it in terms of barring consumables!

Best to call it quits before it (potentially) gets out of hand. No ill-feelings meant towarRAB anyone; just having some debate, 'tis all.
 
Thanks for that:) dont think I will get a apology though the masager supposed to be calling me today and does not look forthcoming now:(
 
The legal position, AFAICT, is that they are within their rights to refuse you entry, if they wish. If they do that before you even get into the auditorium, then I would say there is no excuse not to refund you. It therefore becomes your choice whether to allow them to enforce their policy, or to leave. If you allow them to confiscate legitimate food items from you, then they should take reasonable care of them and give them back when you leave.

The situation is a little different for Unlimited card holders (and arguably of any pre-paid ticket e.g. a gift voucher). If they try to prevent you from seeing your film, they may be in breach of the terms of the contract for the card/voucher. If that is the case, you could sue them for the costs you incurred in getting to/from the cinema and for the costs (in the case of Unlimited) of the card. It would be for the court to decide whether banning you from entering with legitimate items being used for a legal purpose was reasonable.

There's also a potential legal challenge under the Unfair Contract Terms act - in that denying you admission with your own food may not be a reasonable extension to selling you a ticket.

Either way, taking your own food items to the cinema is not theft. At best it's an infringement of a by-law that may or may not be legal in its own right.

edit: Since the perceived "theft" arises from the disproportionate difference in cost between similar items purchased inside and outside the cinema, I'm guessing that a court may not look favourably on it.
 
One of the things that has been said here amazes me: do people still really make pirate copies of films using a camera in the cinema???

Surely it's easier to download a DVD rip from the internet a month or 2 before release and sell copies of that than to go and make a rubbish quality copy in the cinema?
 
you pay for your seat at the end of the day, not the forced right to buy food and drink from them. And they dont sell what I wanna eat either,:(:cry:


And their coffee is always cold so it substandard as well. And I have bought stuff from them as well in the past. just dont repsect being forced to buy their stuff when I may not want to
 
Perhaps a little sublety is being lost here?

The cinema is abusing its privilege to control entry by using it to enforce its inflated pricing for refreshments. Within the law there is no provision for them to search, to ban food & drink or to confiscate it from you. There is a legal provision to ban YOU, but if they did that to everyone, they would have no business.

Either way, it doesn't make it right. I can see no legitimate reason to willingly allow a search for items that are not illegal to possess. Presumably with the football analogy, the search is for items that are officially banned under relevant legislation from football grounRAB? That is not the case for cinemas.
 
Would you go to a restuarant and sneak your own food in to eat? The cinema are 100% in the right, if no-one bought any concessions they would soon go out of business. If you don't like it, don't go.
 
Thankyou:) I have just wrote another letter to them lets see what happens it only took two minutes as unlike some poster son here I am not wound up over it i am just interested to see what thye have to say,
 
Back
Top