Recently in media Category

This past Sunday the Philadelphia Fringe Festival featured the final of three performances of the Gonzales Cantata, a choral rendition of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (For pictures of the final performance see my earlier post.)

Once you get beyond the bizarre concept (an operatic work with a libretto taken from Senate hearings) and the media hype (with coverage from Fox News to the Rachel Maddow Show) and the quirky advertising (with posters of Senator Arlen Spector wearing earrings and Alberto Gonzales in a tiara) -- once you get past all that, it turns out the Gonzales Cantata is a powerful and moving work. Written by Melissa Dunphy while she was an undergraduate student at West Chester University, the piece is a surprisingly nuanced exploration of personal tragedy and ethical lapses in American politics.

The work switches the genders of the performers and the characters they portray (hence the earrings and tiara in the posters of the male protagonists). This was done, we are told, "in protest of the continued male domination of American politics." Political motivations aside, the gender reversals work well musically, with the central roles of Alberto Gonzales played by soprano Mary Thorne and Senator Patrick Leahy sung by coloratura soprano Jessica Lennick.

The multifaceted tone of the afternoon's performance was established at the outset. Before beginning the cantata, it was announced that we would first hear a performance of "three patriotic songs." Knowing that Dunphy had previously attempted to do an arrangement of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's "Let the Eagle Soar" -- Ashcroft declined Dunphy's request -- I was primed for ironic parodies of American tunes. When countertenor Nicholas Tamagna opened with a tender and beautiful rendition of "America the Beautiful," it was clear the afternoon's entertainment would include unexpected moments. The rousing rendition of Souza's "Stars and Stripes Forever" that followed seemed well suited to the arrangement for countertenor, harpsichord, and piccolo . (For my money, the piccolo part in Souza's classic arrangement has always been the highlight of this song). For the third song, a performance of the unctuously patriotic "God Bless the USA" let us know that irony would not be entirely absent from the afternoon's festivities.

The cantata itself similarly moved between broad humor and poignant reflection. Much of the tone is, indeed, satirical. At times the work is laugh-out-loud funny, such as when soprano Mary Thorne as Gonzales sings "I don't recall" 72 times (as the real Gonzales declared in one session before Congress) while a projector displays the current tally of the denials.

Ultimately, however, the cantata evokes a sense of sadness. Taken in its entirety, Dunphy's work is more tragedy than comedy, as it seeks to uncover a sense of meaning and humanity within this dark moment in American politics.

The overall tone of the piece brings to mind Sam Mendes' 1999 film "America Beauty" based on the screenplay by Alan Ball. While both works are rife with satire, they are also meditations on the emptiness and cynicism of contemporary America.

The venue -- the Rotunda at the edge of the University of Pennsylvania campus in West Philadelphia -- was a great surprise. I had passed by his old and disheveled building countless times, but had never given it much thought. Inside, its classical architecture (with a dome that vaguely resembles Rome's Pantheon) befits the Senatorial proceedings. The peeling paint and decaying ceiling provide the requisite "crumbling empire" feel. And the fallen chandelier in the middle of the floor (which I don't believe was placed there for effect) adds a certain sense of Phantom-of-the-Opera-esque Grand Guignol to the setting.

Given the rundown appearance of the hall, its acoustics were surprisingly good. The vocals were clear with just a touch of reverb to expand the operatic sound. The performances by vocalists and instrumentalists alike were all first rate (and generally an improvement -- particularly instrumentally -- over those on the recording available on CD and from Dunphy's web site).

The Gonzales Cantata is an eloquent and powerful work. I entered the auditorium expecting a cynical farce. I left with the realization that Dunphy has created a thoughtful and moving musical reflection on recent American history.

For those who missed the three performances this past weekend, an earlier recording of the work is available on Dunphy's Bandcamp page and linked from the Gonzales Cantata web site: http://www.gonzalescantata.com/

This fall Ms. Dunphy begins work on her doctorate in musical composition at the University of Pennsylvania. I can't wait to hear what she does next.

 

 

Photos from yesterday's performance of the Gonzales Cantata at the University of Pennsylvania's Rotunda are in my Flickr photostream.

Composed and conducted by Melissa Dunphy, the piece is a musical rendition of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. By turns both satirically funny and poignantly moving, the operatic work ran for three performances as part of the Philadelphia Fringe Festival.

While the photos may capture some of the excitement of the live performance, the work was meant to be heard. You can play or download a previous performance of the Gonzales Cantata on Bandcamp.

For more information on the Gonzales Cantata, see the project's web site:
http://www.gonzalescantata.com/. For news and updates, follow the Gonzales Cantata on Facebook or Twitter.

Photos from yesterday's DIY Days Philadelphia are now available in my Flickr photostream (as well as in the 'diydays' photo pool in Flickr).

The conference, sponsored by the Workbook Project and hosted by filmmaker and industry commentator Lance Weiler, included presentations on the production, distribution, and financing of independent cinema and other art forms.

For more information and updates, see the DIY Days website and the conference dashboard.

As the old joke goes, everyone knew the floating crap game was crooked but played anyway -- because it was the only game in town. This came to mind with a Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that Sony Pictures has entered into a distribution agreement with kiosk video rental firm Redbox. In addition, according to an earlier report in the Journal, Walt Disney and Lions Gate Entertainment may have made similar deals with Redbox.

To date, most studios have not viewed Redbox as an ally. Universal Pictures sued to force the company to stop distributing its movies. The case is currently awaiting a ruling.

The issue, naturally, is over money. Mass distributors such as Blockbuster and Netflix pay the studios a percentage of their rental fees and, in return, receive bulk shipments of popular DVD titles directly from the studios. Redbox, on the other hand, buys from distributors such as Ingram Entertainment and only pays the purchase price of the DVDs.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the new arrangement with Sony allows Redbox to buy directly from the studio at a lower price than it would receive from distributors. The deal apparently does not include a revenue sharing arrangement. But it does, according to the article, require Redbox to destroy (rather than retain the rights to resell) the DVDs once they are removed from the rental service.

Although the pricing details weren't announced, it's unlikely that Redbox is receiving the same discounted rate as revenue sharing partners such as Blockbuster. Nonetheless, one suspects that companies like Blockbuster and Netflix will look askance at such an arrangement. When the time comes to renegotiate their contracts with Sony, expect these firms to come to the bargaining table with renewed demands.

For its part, Sony is trying to make the best of a bad situation. Despite the lack of revenue sharing, the arrangement with Redbox is an opportunity to eke out a little more profit from the declining DVD market. As revenues from physical media like DVDs continue to erode, deals like this may represent the only game in town.

In "The Hulu Effect at Fox TV? Less is More in TV Advertising" last December, I observed that Fox television appeared to be following the lead of online video services like Hulu in running fewer ads per show. By having shorter commercial breaks -- and communicating at the outset that the program would, for example, "return in 60 seconds" -- the network hoped viewers would sit through the ads rather than changing channels, zapping past the commercials, or just walking away.

Comcast, which along with Time Warner plans to go online with some of its cable programming, apparently has a different view. According to the Wall Street Journal, Comcast plans to include the same complement of ads online as when the programs are originally broadcast.

Andy Heller, vice chairman of Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting, is quoted as saying, "We spend billions of dollars buying and making these programs. And if we give this stuff to consumers for free with limited ads, it'll go away."

Television programs on Hulu, the free alternative to these cable-subscription services, typically contain less advertising than when they are shown on broadcast television. According to Jean-Paul Colaco, senior vice president of advertising at Hulu, the company has no immediate plans to change this scheme. The Journal states that "Mr. Colaco says Hulu's focus is on increasing the effectiveness of ads and the amount of revenue they produce, rather than increasing their number."

The issue, then, is one of quality versus quantity. If online commercials prove to be more effective than their broadcast counterparts, networks can run fewer ads per program. In theory this should be the case. Online ads can be targeted more narrowly and measured more accurately. And, of course, they can't be skipped over as can the ads in recorded TV programs. Because of this, as the Journal piece points out, web ads typically command higher advertising rates per view.

The networks and cable companies are reluctant to leave money on the table, however. They are concerned, in the now famous words of NBC Universal president and CEO Jeff Zucker, about "trading analog dollars for digital pennies."

While individual ad spots may command a higher CPM (cost per thousand views), the overall revenue-generating power of online content remains to be demonstrated. Until online programming can prove its ability to generate revenue on a par with conventional distribution methods, expect the traditional media to be reluctant to change the rules of the game as they move their content online.

"Little-Known Redbox Proves the Power of In-Between Technology" in the current issue of Fast Company describes the rapid rise of video rental kiosk vendor Redbox. As indicated by the title, the article underscores how Redbox has succeeded using "in-between" technology, focusing on what works now rather than chasing the latest vision of the high-tech future:

Ask any entertainment bigwig where the movie-rental business is going and you'll hear one thing: digital streaming. Amazon, Apple, Netflix, the cable companies, and many startups are gearing up to send every movie to your home on demand. But Hollywood's byzantine licensing structure precludes that from happening anytime soon. Redbox has positioned itself as the perfect in-between technology -- the next best thing to on demand.

To drive home the point, the author describes the Redbox kiosk as follows:

This sorry contraption doesn't run peer-to-peer software; it doesn't do Blu-ray; it won't stream anything straight to your house. It's a vending machine in a supermarket -- as old school as you can get without actually involving vacuum tubes.

One of Redbox's leading competitors is Netflix. The article cites a Hollywood Reporter article in which Netflix CEO Reed Hastings identifies Redbox as his company's "fastest-growing competitor" stating, "It's really scary."

For all the emphasis on Redbox's success as a transitional technology, the Fast Company piece fails to note that Netflix's current model also rests largely on "in-between" technology. Like Redbox, Netflix distributes physical media. Shipping DVDs through the U.S. Postal Service is hardly the epitome of high-tech.

Like Redbox, Netflix built a business based on the practical realities of the current technology environment. Both companies realize that while distributing physical media may seem antiquated to forward-looking futurists, it is an efficient method of distributing digital content.

It is surprising how often the drive toward the future blinds us to the value of these low-tech "in-between" solutions. As Andrew Tanenbaum observed back in 1996 when comparing computer networks to old-fashioned physical transportation of media, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."

But the future will ultimately arrive, and Netflix has cleverly positioning itself for that eventuality. While generating a steady revenue stream by embracing the old -- that is, currently practical -- technology, Netflix's "Watch Instantly" feature builds a bridge to the on-demand streaming future.

There are impediments that still need to be overcome, of course. We need more bandwidth and better video compression. We need an easy way to send streaming content to any screen in our homes. But the seeds of these capabilities are already being planted. For example, Netflix's streaming capabilities currently come bundled with selected Blu-ray players, game consoles, and large screen televisions.

On-demand will eventually overtake media-based distribution. When that happens, Netflix will be able to gracefully transition its business model -- and its paying customer base -- to the streaming future. The long-term outlook for Redbox is less clear.

As noted previously, IMAX is extending -- some would say blurring -- the IMAX brand by retrofitting existing multiplex theaters with larger screens and upgraded sound systems. The Wall Street Journal reports that competitors are moving into the territory of what might be termed "low-end large screen" cinema projection.

The converted IMAX theaters have generated a considerable criticism since, while their screens are larger than those of the typical multiplex, their dimensions pale by comparison to traditional IMAX installations. Confounding the issue, the company doesn't communicate that difference in their marketing, branding both types of installations simply as "IMAX." (See "The IMAX Conundrum.")

According to the Journal, other companies are following IMAX's lead and are introducing larger screens -- and charging a premium ticket price. Cinemark Holdings has introduced their Cinemark XD -- Extreme Digital Cinema -- with large screens and an enhanced sound system. And AMC Entertainment has introduced their ETX, or Enhanced Theatre Experience, in IMAX's home turf in Toronto.

The article doesn't include information on the dimensions of screens on these new systems, so it isn't clear how they compare with IMAX's retrofits.

But this underscores the brand dilution peril IMAX faces if the company fails to differentiate its original IMAX format from the newer, smaller format upon which competitors are now encroaching.

The photo illustration above is based on the IMAX logo, the copyright for which is most likely owned by IMAX Corp. It is believed that its use as modified here for critical commentary qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

When industries converge, there is often a collision of terminologies. Different traditions have their own ways of describing the same thing. In the latter half of the 1980s, personal computing converged with the typesetting industry. While the latter talked about points and picas, the former saw everything in terms of pixels.

Now computing is converging with entertainment media and, again, we find a heritage of looking at the same thing in different ways.

Consider the resolution of digital video.

Anyone who has recently purchased a Blu-ray player or a large-screen television is no doubt familiar with the numbers used to characterize high-definition television -- 720p, 1080i, and 1080p -- even if the exact meaning of these figures may remain elusive. And most people know that, for a given resolution, 'p' (progressive scan) is better better than 'i' (interlaced).

What may be less clear is: 720 or 1080 what? What do these numbers measure? As many of you -- the technically savvy readers of this blog -- are no doubt aware, these figures refer to the number of horizontal scan lines in the image -- in other words, its vertical resolution.

If you've been following developments in digital cinema, you also know that movie theaters may use what is termed a "1K" or a "2K" digital projector. My recent post on the IMAX Conundrum, for example, mentioned that IMAX Digital uses dual 2K Christie projectors. But what is the "2K" (that is, 2,048) measuring? 2,048 what? Is it the same vertical resolution described above?

No. In this case, the number indicates the number of pixels in each scan line -- the image's horizontal resolution.

Why are consumer displays indicated by their vertical resolution and professional projectors by their horizontal resolution?

Television's focus on vertical resolution may come from the legacy of traditional TV signals which, although analog, contain a fixed number of horizontal scan lines: 525 for NTSC and 625 for PAL. The new digital formats continue this tradition of thinking of image quality in terms of the number of scan lines -- the vertical resolution. Why cinema projectors took the opposite tack of specifying the horizontal resolution is anyone's guess.

The upshot is that a projector with a resolution of, say, 2048 pixels horizontally and 1080 pixels vertically could be described as either 2K ('2048') or 1080p.

Differences in aspect ratios add to the confusion. A 1080p digital television may have a resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels, while a 2K cinema projector may be 2048 by 1080. Sony has a 4K projector with a native resolution of 4,096 by 2,160 pixels. The RED ONE digital camera is also termed a 4K device, even though it has a native resolution of 4520 x 2540 pixels.

Computer monitors and video display cards have long avoided this confusion by simply indicating both the horizontal and the vertical resolution. Thus early VGA displays were characterized as "640 x 480," that is, a horizontal resolution of 640 pixels and vertical resolution of 480 pixels. An XGA display is 1024 by 768. And so on.

The computer geeks have it right in this case. The convenience of having a single number to indicate resolution -- 2K, 1080p -- is outweighed by the clarity of giving both dimensions. Let's avoid the confusion and state video resolution as two numbers -- the horizontal by the vertical resolution.

 

When Variety columnist and blogger Scott Kirsner published his book, "Fans, Friends, and Followers," he sent a request to other writers to document additional tales of how creative artists are using innovative methods to develop a fan base and establish a sustainable career.

When I received Kirsner's request, the first person who came to mind was Los Angeles based singer/songwriter Kat Parsons.

Parsons first came to my attention several years ago as a result of my following the career of Jill Knight, another independent singer/songwriter. In 2004, Knight was one of seven finalists in the Acoustic Live competition in Los Angeles. As the final round of the contest approached, I wanted to assess the other six performers against whom she was competing. After listening to the music of each of these contestants I concluded that Kat Parsons presented the biggest competitive challenge to Knight.

When the winners were announced, Parsons took first place, with Knight first runner-up. I remain a fan of both, and have since seen each perform many times. In 2006, I was pleased to attend the only concert the two women have performed together at the Hotel Cafe in Los Angeles.

In addition to her wonderful voice, I was struck by the various ways Parsons connects with her audience -- off stage as well as on. At every show Parsons passes around a sign-up sheet to garner email addresses from those in attendance. She later follows up with chatty emails and announcements of when she's performing in your region of the country. As she tours, she posts pictures, songs, and videos on her web site, MySpace page, and YouTube. When she traveled to Australia in 2006, she posted "video postcards" on YouTube each day for 30 days with everything from live performances to amusing travel adventures.

Although not signed to a recording contract, Parsons has self-released two albums, "Framing Caroline" in 1999 and "No Will Power" in 2005. She now works full time performing her music.

I recently spoke with Parsons over Skype while she was performing in Japan, and followed up with additional questions through email. An edited version of those conversations follows.

KW: Fans partially funded your last album. Where did that idea come from?

Parsons: I heard about it through a fellow singer/songwriter named Jenny Bruce.

There were many ways in which people could contribute. The lowest level was $20 for a signed CD and it went upwards from that. People could [give] $100 and get tickets to the CD release party up to $1,000 where I take them out to lunch and fun things like singing on a track in the studio, coming to watch the recording for an hour, or getting a dedication at the CD release party.

KW: How much money did you generate?

Parsons: About $18,000.

KW: Was that all $20 contributions for the CD or did some people pay for the big-ticket $1,000 items?

Parsons: There were a lot of $20 [contributions] and a couple of people paid for the big one as well. It really spanned the whole offer.

KW: What percentage of the cost of the album did that cover?

Parsons: Most of the album. The album cost about $22,000.

It worked out wonderfully. It's nerve-racking when you put yourself out there like that. You don't know: Is anyone going to be interested? I didn't know what to expect.

It ended up being this experience that was so wonderful. I knew I wanted to do a certain kind of album and I had no idea how I was going to pay for it. It was so exciting that it worked, and I could make the album I wanted to make.

I had so many supporters who were willing to contribute. -- it wasn't [just] my parents and family friends. I was very grateful that people wanted to hear my new music and my heart felt warmed that people wanted to be part of it.

KW: At your live performances you send around a sign-up sheet to get email addresses from everyone.

Parsons: Passing your email list around during a show is a good idea. Often people like what they hear, but they don't sign up for the email list. Some people are shy, and if [the sign-up sheet] is near where you're performing it's embarrassing for [people] to walk close to the stage or draw attention to themselves.

KW: How long is your mailing list now?

Parsons: It's around 8,000 or something.

KW: Do you have any tips for managing a list of that size?

Parsons: I use this great email program called CoolerEmail. I met them in San Diego earlier in my music career [when] they were just getting started. Their program is really helpful because you can see how many people read the email, [and how many] clicked on it. You can look up someone specifically or the statistics in general. It's a nice way of knowing what's happening with your email list.

KW: When you play at a club or a concert venue, how does the revenue break down? Does your money come just from CD sales or do you get part of the door?

Parsons: Different venues have different arrangements. Often it's a percentage of the door [entrance fee]: after a certain dollar amount has been reached, you'll get a percentage of the remainder.

It also depends on your status, frankly. If they really want you to come to the venue, they might offer you a guarantee [fixed fee]. Sometimes you get a guarantee plus a percentage of the door after a certain dollar amount has been reached.

Some venues are more generous than others, [and there are] some venues that will never offer a guarantee. That's just the way their venue is set up. If it's a $10 ticket, you get $5 of the $10 ticket, or whatever. So, at some venues you won't get a guarantee no matter how many people you bring -- you just get a percentage of the door.

KW: You've also toured overseas -- Japan, where you are now, as well as Brunei and elsewhere. Is the opportunity to generate income greater overseas?

Parsons: Those are all different gigs. Right now I'm in Japan and I'm playing at a hotel. So it's a regular gig -- I actually have a salary. It's wild! [Laughs.]

In Brunei it was more like the type of shows [I play in the U.S.].

So far, I have been able to make a lot more money in the overseas gigs because people fly me out to the various places. When I toured in Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia they flew me out, covered all my travel costs, and paid me a nice fee.

Because there were music societies or private parties that were hosting me, no one was charged cover.

There's very little original live music in Brunei. So it was this opportunity for all their colleagues to come and see some original live music. No one was charged cover. I was just paid a fee. And then, yes, I did sell a lot of CDs in that trip so I was able to supplement my income with CD sales.

Those shows were more lucrative than my U.S. shows.

KW: How do you find gigs like this where somebody's paying for you to travel somewhere to play?

Parsons: All of those come from people who have seen me play somewhere else and said, "Hey, I'd love for you to come play at such-and-such."

I was in Thailand and someone said, "I'd love to have you come play in Brunei." I said, "Great, let's do it." I got the person's email and followed up with them. It's crazy because you think, "Oh, yeah. I'd love to play in such-and-such." [Laughs.] But you have to be open to this stuff.

It's all pretty organic in that way. In fact, everything that's ever happened in my musical career has happened because of people who have liked my music. I'm very grateful for that.

KW: You also perform private "house concerts."

Parsons: Private concerts are generally what I prefer. The fee structure is set up differently [from commercial venues]. At the private concerts, your job is only about delivering a fantastic show and taking a trip with everyone for an evening together.  At a club sometimes, where you are expected to provide the audience and get a percentage [of the entrance fee], while your job is about the music, it is also about "bringing" people.

KW: How does the fee structure work at a house concert?

Parsons: It is between the artist and the host, so any arrangement can be made.  I have done both a fixed fee -- for people who do not want to charge an entrance fee -- or [based on] the guests’ contribution, with a guaranteed minimum. Occasionally there are variations if we are doing something for a charity.

KW: In addition to selling CDs at your concerts you also sell them on your web site and places like CD Baby and Amazon.com. How successful is each of these?

Parsons: [In person] CD sales are definitely best for me. That's where I sell the majority of my CDs. But those other avenues are nice to have. For example, in Japan I've sold out of my CDs and I still have a week and half left to play here. Those sites are nice because I can send people to them to buy the CD online or through iTunes.

It's still better to carry [the boxes] to sell the CDs. People are more likely to buy something if you have it there than [they are] to remember to go to the web site, blah-de-blah.

KW: After "No Will Power" was released, it was carried by some of the major retailers like the Virgin Megastores. How do you get into those outlets?

Parsons: I had a distribution deal with Cleopatra Records. They did a great job and got it in a bunch of stores. They were even able to put a little advertising behind it -- for which I was really grateful.

Generally speaking, I don't think distribution makes sense for an independent artist unless there's a lot of advertising behind it. Because if people don't know your music, then they're not going to buy your CD.

If you have advertising dollars behind it -- on a listening station, an advertisement in paper, something like that -- then it makes more sense. If you don't have advertising dollars behind it, it's probably just going to sit there in the bin, because no one knows who you are.

KW: How profitable is digital distribution through sites like iTunes?

Parsons: The worst is iTunes. You make very little on the digital sales. That's worse than anything.

KW: Really?

Parsons: Yeah, because you're talking [a retail price of] 99 cents per track. You're making, like, 63 cents or something. 

If someone likes [your music] and then buys a 63 cent song it's awesome -- except you'd have to sell, like, 101 songs to get any money.

It's just hard to survive on digital sales.

KW: You're still an independent artist. Have you had any overtures from record labels?

Parsons: I haven't talked to a record label in a while.

My purpose changes in life, but generally I really want to connect with people. I don't really need a label. I enjoy connecting with people on a very personal level.

I appreciate the way in which labels help artists reach a wider audience. They can be really wonderful in certain situations.  I am not for or against labels. But the business, in that sense, is not my focus. For me, what works best is what happens organically through fans.

KW: Do you now make enough to be an artist full time?

Parsons: Oh, yes. I've been doing this full time for several years.

KW: How long did it take you to get to that point when you didn’t need to have side jobs?

Parsons: I think that if you have no other job, you make it work.

When I started, I would temp for a little bit, then I would stop temping and just do music. And then I would temp again. [Laughs.]

When it becomes a necessity to make a living at it, you do that.

KW: Looking back, what's the biggest mistake you've made in terms of your career? If there is one thing you could do differently, what would that be?

Parsons: I try not to think like that. Because we're all just doing our best, right? A lot of the learning happens in doing.

So, ultimately, I probably wouldn't change anything. I've [learned] so much about myself, this career, and the world.

Sometimes you get caught up in how to make your music go somewhere, and that ends up taking up a bigger role than the music. There have been times where I've felt overwhelmed working on getting my music to a larger audience, instead of on what I love to do, which is to sing and make people laugh sometimes. [Laughs.]

The Internet is great because there's so much opportunity, but it's hard to know which opportunity is worth pursuing. You can spend all your time pursuing every opportunity.

I guess what I would say, were I to meet my younger self -- that's so funny, it sounds like I'm really old -- but were I to meet my younger self, I would encourage me to always be really connected to what it is I love doing, and connected to the music.

Updated, May 23, 2009

When I interviewed IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond (then co-chairman and co-CEO) for Knowledge@Wharton two years ago, it seemed like the best of times and the worst of times for the company. While IMAX had done record box office with the just-released Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the company's stock price was languishing and it was in the process of restating its financial filings and responding to an inquiry from the SEC.

Much has transpired in the intervening two years. Many of the plans that Gelfond outlined to Knowledge@Wharton have since been realized, including the roll out of the company's digital projection system and expansion of the number of IMAX theaters, including retrofitting existing theaters to offer an IMAX-branded experience.

The current (June 2009) issue of Fast Company named Gelfond one of the "100 most creative people in business," praising the company's recent moves (and including, in the online version of the profile on Gelfond, a quote from my Knowledge@Wharton interview). Fast Company concludes that IMAX is "poised to claim more market share."

The recent box office numbers support the optimism about the company's future. Gelfond recently stated  that IMAX was responsible for 15% of the total domestic box office for Star Trek on only 138 screens.

But there are a dark clouds forming on the horizon. Some observers have questioned whether IMAX's expansion has come at the cost of diluting the company's brand and sowing consumer confusion.

Back in October, 2008, LF Examiner, which calls itself "the independent journal of the large format motion picture industry" published a piece titled "Is IMAX the next 'New Coke'?" questioning whether it was appropriate to apply the venerable IMAX brand to the newer, retrofitted theaters.

The main point of contention is the size of the screen. The original IMAX system, known as "15/70," used a large 70mm by 46.5mm film frame with 15 perforations horizontally. The image was projected onto a huge 76 by 97 foot screen. The retrofitted theaters are considerably smaller. The size may vary somewhat by venue, but LF Examiner states that the screen in New York City's AMC Empire 25 IMAX digital theater is 28 x 58 feet -- still large by multiplex standards, but much smaller than the traditional IMAX screen.

The LF Examiner piece also raises questions about IMAX's digital projection system, claiming that while the dual 2K Christie projectors have "good contrast and slightly better resolution than other digital projectors" they display a visible "screen door effect" created by the projector's grid of pixels.

The issue of the two different IMAX systems gained renew traction on May 12 when actor and comedian Aziz Ansari published a profanity-laced blog post decrying his less than satisfactory experience seeing Star Trek in a digital IMAX theater.

Ansari begins by declaring: "WARNING: AMC theaters are running FAKE IMAX's and charging $5 extra for a slightly bigger screen. Boycott IMAX, AMC, and Regal. Don't let them fool you." He ratchets up the invective in the remainder of the post.

Gelfond responded to some of Ansari's charges in a MainStreet.com article by explaining that the "IMAX experience" is about more than just screen size. Ansari, for his part, remains unconvinced.

The core controversy isn't whether IMAX should make the move to digital projection or be allowed to retrofit existing theaters. The issue is whether the company should use the same brand identity for both systems.

According to the LF Examiner, IMAX VP Larry O'Reilly stated that IMAX's two major digital partners, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, originally wanted to call the new screens "IMAX Digital" to differentiate them from the traditional IMAX experience. But, for reasons of their own, the company continues to market both systems under the same name and doesn't provide information on which theaters are equipped with which technology.

Because of IMAX's refusal to differentiate the theaters with the smaller screens from those using the larger IMAX format, movie fans have collected their own field reports and published them using Google maps on a site titled "IMAX or LIEMAX?".

This groundswell of consumer backlash shows no signs of abating. Gelfond and company need to address this issue head on. IMAX is a company with a distinguished history and a strong brand. The company owes it to its customers and shareholders to communicate its product offerings clearly.

Update: May 23, 2009

As anticipated, the controversy about the varying sizes of IMAX screens shows no signs of subsiding. A number of major publications have added to the debate since this post was originally published. 

Variety's David Cohen reviews the situation in an article titled "Imax Responds to Screen Size Critics." The piece contains a few quotes from IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond which, sadly, add little to the conversation. Gelfond states that "We are going to do something" about the complaints but, as Cohen puts it, "he isn't sure what."

Wired published a more in-depth Q&A with Gelfond which asks the pointed question: "What exactly does IMAX mean?"

Gelfond responds:

IMAX means the most immersive film experience on the planet. 3-D is going to be more obvious to you in IMAX. And in 2-D, IMAX means a special sound system. It means special treatment of the film so that when Star Trek is shown in an IMAX theater, it goes through a digital process where we up-res the movie so there’s more brightness and more contrast.

And with the screen part of it: In all of these multiplexes, IMAX is the biggest screen. But it’s not only screen size. There's something called "perceived screen size," which involves the relationship of the viewer to the screen. If you're in the first row, that screen is going to look a hell of a lot bigger to you than if you're in the 30th row. We typically take out the first four rows of seats in a theater and move the screen forward so it’s a lot farther forward in an IMAX theater. Also, the screen goes floor to ceiling, wall to wall. By bringing a floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall screen forward toward the audience, the viewer has the perception that the screen is larger than just the physical size.

Scott Mendelson, writing in the Huffington Post, sees the debate as "ridiculous" and echoes Gelfond's sentiments that "IMAX is not just about screen size" but, rather, is about "picture quality, sound quality, and the theoretical ability to completely immerse yourself in the film."

Mendelson has little sympathy for the plight of actor and blogger Aziz Ansari who complained bitterly about paying for an IMAX version of Star Trek and then being disappointed by the size of the screen. Mendelson asks "[Why] the heck didn't [Ansari] just drive about five minutes...to the Universal City Walk theater with a truly giant 'traditional' IMAX screen?"

While I find Ansari's profane, over-the-top response disproportionate to the offense he suffered, Mendelson misses the point. His question assumes that the viewer knows in advance the size of the screen and -- to the extent the consumer cares -- can make an informed choice. But neither IMAX nor the theaters provide this information, labeling all venues "the IMAX experience" regardless of screen size and projection technology (15/70 film versus digital).

There is something magical about the immersive cinematic experience provided by a large screen, a crisp image, and high-quality sound. I'm pleased that IMAX is working to bring that experience to a wider audience. But the company needs to be more transparent about the projection details in the various IMAX-branded venues.


The image of the IMAX logo is a copyrighted image, the copyright for which is most likely owned by IMAX Corp. It is believed that the use of a web-resolution image for identification and critical commentary qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.  "The IMAX Experience" is a registered trademark of IMAX Corp. The opening image was adapted from an image originally published by LF Examiner. It is believed that its modification and use for critical commentary qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.