The Anti-Monopoly Bureau informed the film bureau about the discount on movie tickets

Recently, an internal document of the SARFT Bureau of Film and Television stated that “the discount price for movie tickets is not to be less than 70% discount”. Yesterday, the reporter learned from an authoritative source that the anti-monopoly bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission had already found the movie board and other related parties to understand the situation.

"The lowest fare is 30% off," still solicit opinions February 26th, "The filmmakers spit vest" in the microblogging on the exposure of the recent film bureau to the Chinese Film Distribution Association, China Filmmakers Association issued "About further Standardize the Guiding Opinions on the Ticketing Management of the Film Market (hereinafter referred to as "Opinions").

This document regulates some of the current phenomena in the movie ticketing market. Including: Divide the country into several types of regions and formulate guidance fares separately. The guide price is the highest retail fare for a movie in various regions, and the price of movie listing for ordinary movies must not be higher than the local guide price; 3D, IMAX, and other standards The fare of the film can be increased by a certain percentage on the basis of this, but the highest percentage of the increase is no more than 50% of the guided fare. The percentage of the VIP film room must be filed with the local administrative department for record; the discounted fare set by the theater must not be lower than 70% of the listing price, which means that the difference between the lowest fare on the non-half-day price and the highest fare will not exceed 30%.

Yesterday, the reporter learned from an authoritative source that the anti-monopoly bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission had already found the movie board and other related parties to understand the situation.

The film bureau previously stated that the “concessional fare may not be less than 70% of the listed price” and other regulations are only drafts for the draft of an internal document and are still soliciting opinions, which will be revised in the future according to the opinions of law enforcement agencies.

According to lawyers, the film bureau's alleged abuse of administrative power has begun to intervene in the anti-monopoly bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission, and legal professionals have expressed support. In an interview with a reporter, partner of Shanghai Dabang Law Firm and Intellectual Property Lawyer Yunyun Yun said that the Anti-Monopoly Bureau's involvement in understanding the situation is clearly that this “opinion” of the Bureau of Film and Television of SARFT has been suspected of administrative monopoly. He said that the film bureau has its rationality from the perspective of regulating the market, but the price management should be attributed to the Price Bureau, and movie tickets are no longer market pricing. The film bureau's practice is suspected of violating the "Price Law" and "Anti-Monopoly Law." , and allegedly abused administrative power to eliminate and restrict competition.

Wang Xiaoyu, member of the State Council Anti-Monopoly Committee's expert advisory group, said yesterday that the contents of the “Draft for Soliciting Comments” of the Film Bureau were suspected of using its own administrative power to interfere in market competition and alleged administrative monopoly. "The movie market itself is liberalized. The competition between cinemas itself has checks and balances between each other, which can allow ordinary people to enjoy preferential treatment. If such a policy is introduced, it will seriously damage consumer rights."

According to Wang Xiaoyu's analysis, the competent authority may not understand the "Anti-Monopoly Law" when it issues such a document. Now China's administrative monopoly is still very large. One of the important reasons is that the supervision or punishment of administrative monopoly is not enough, resulting in an illegal administrative monopoly. The cost is low. Some government departments may not know this law at all, or even ignore it.

Consumers’ rights or other analysts affected by the report said yesterday that if the “Opinions” were formally introduced, they would seriously affect the interests of consumers. They hope that after the anti-monopoly bureau intervenes, such provisions will not be introduced eventually.

On August 1, 2008, the "Anti-Monopoly Law" was officially implemented. Article 8 of the Anti-Monopoly Law states that: Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations that have the function of managing public affairs shall not abuse their administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition. Article 37 stipulates: Administrative organs must not abuse their administrative power and formulate regulations that contain content that excludes or restricts competition.

Yesterday, the reporter saw on the official website of the SARFT that there were ten main functions of the film bureau, and one related to the ticket market was “instructing, supervising film production, distribution and screening.” reporter Jingjing Jing of the newspaper ■ Link Development and Reform Commission Investigation of Market Monopoly Behavior Since last year, the Development and Reform Commission’s Anti-Monopoly Bureau has conducted a number of investigations into market monopolies.

On November 10 last year, the National Development and Reform Commission launched an anti-monopoly investigation on China Telecom and China Unicom on broadband access issues. According to statistics, this is also the first anti-monopoly investigation conducted by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency against central SOEs since the Anti-Monopoly Law was formally implemented on August 1, 2008.

According to the reporter's understanding, as early as in 2008, the NDRC's price inspection department set up an anti-price monopoly and market supervision office to engage in anti-price monopoly work. The National Development and Reform Commission previously investigated many local individual enterprises. For example, since 2010, the National Development and Reform Commission investigated the behavior of Nanning and Liuzhou rice noodle manufacturers and the prices of colostrums in Xiamen's catering and disinfection industries. In addition to the local individual enterprises, the investigation and handling targets occasionally involve some state-owned enterprises. Holding companies, such as the recently investigated Guangxi Fengcui Biochemical Co., Ltd., have hoarded and raised prices, and the data show that the company is a state-controlled enterprise.

In addition, last year, the NDRC also issued a first fine of up to 7 million yuan for the monopoly of two pharmaceutical companies in Shandong.

■ Inaccurate box office data due to group status, etc. After the “Astro Boy” false report at the box office in 2009 was criticized by the Bureau of Film and Television of the SARFT, the phenomenon of stealing box office in the film market has caused many hot debates; The raising of the minimum fare and the proportion of splits proposed by Sanchao also made it possible for the “fat” of structured fares that are in close contact with the general audience to surface.

It is said that the "Guidance Opinions on Further Regulating the Ticketing Management in the Film Market" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions") issued by the Film Bureau to the China Film Distribution Association and the China Filmmakers Association is precisely for the purpose of cracking down on thefts at the box office. phenomenon.

Current movie fares are not priced uniformly across the country, and the highest price for 2D movies is sometimes four or five times higher, while the difference between 3D, IMAX, 3D IMAX, and VIP studios is even higher. Therefore, the "Opinions" pointed out that according to factors such as the level of development of various regions, the country will be divided into several types of areas, respectively, to develop guidance fares.

In addition, all the major cinemas in the country have launched promotional activities such as member tickets, group tickets, package tickets, half-price tickets, and structural tickets, and these discounted prices are also one of the most important reasons for inaccurate or even chaotic box office data. In recent years, viewers in many cities and regions have encountered the “print wrong title” in cinemas; in the multiple films included in the package, only one title has been printed on the face of the ticket; the structure of theaters including drinks and popcorn has been sold. In the fare, the price of the movie ticket itself and the price of the selling goods are vague. In fact, these are one of the means to steal box office.

In view of the above phenomenon, the Opinions require that the concession fare set by the theater should not be less than 70% of the listed price.

■ Netizens Responsive to Netizens' Estimated Monthly Revenue Increased by RMB 90.5 Million, “The Lowest Price for Movie Tickets at a Minimum of 70% Off” After the report was reported, it caused concern from all walks of life. According to a survey by the Beijing News Network, 100% of the people involved in the survey did not support the movie bureau's intervention in movie fares.

Some consumers interviewed by reporters said that they are used to buying movie tickets with their friends. The fare is generally 30-40 yuan, equivalent to 4-5 fold. If the fare is not less than 70%, you may be less likely to enter the cinema. Some netizens stated that “according to this practice, apart from large movies, other movies are still awake and everyone looks at piracy at home.”

A netizen stated that based on the 800th data of the group, the average ticket discount for movie tickets was 3.6 fold in December 2011, the fare was 27.5 yuan, and monthly sales were 95.82 million yuan. A rough estimate of the impact of “the lowest movie fare is 30%”: Group purchase consumer costs are doubled and fares are increased to RMB 54.5. Producers and movie theaters each have an average increase of RMB 90.5 million in revenue, and an increase of RMB 1.08 billion in revenue each year.

Another netizen stated that the average movie fare in the United States is US$7.94, which is equivalent to RMB50. In combination with national income, the cost of watching a movie only accounts for 0.2% of its per capita income. According to this ratio, we should only sell 10 yuan for a movie ticket.

According to a survey conducted by the Beijing News Network, 100% of the people involved in the survey did not support the movie bureau's intervention in movie fares, arguing that fares should follow market rules. In addition, 75% of respondents believe that the current movie fare is too high, hindering the viewing.