Word is that the re-structuring will result in dozens of layoffs — in the field as well as at AMC’s new headquarters on the Kansas side of Kansas City. But the company says that it will lose two longtime execs with the closest ties to Hollywood: Film Programming President Sonny Gourley (a 37-year AMC vet) and film buyer Dave Hull (40 years). Many of their responsibilities will be taken on by Elizabeth Frank, who is being promoted to Chief Content and Programming Officer from SVP for Strategy where she managed AMC’s relationships with IMAX and National CineMedia, among other things. She will still report to CEO Gerry Lopez and remain on the board of Open Road Films (AMC’s joint venture with Regal) – but the company says she’ll also “take a growing and active role in working with our new parent company, The Wanda Group”. That’s the Chinese company that’s poised to pay $2.6B for AMC, most of it from assuming AMC’s enormous debt.
Cost control is one of the big reasons for the changes. Expenses ”have increased in some areas faster than revenues,” AMC says. The chain recently sold its theaters in Canada, and bargained for a big payout to switch its online ticketing to Comcast’s Fandango from MovieTickets.com where AMC remains a major equity owner. MovieTickets said in a lawsuit in Florida that Frank breached her fiduciary obligation to the joint venture by continuing to sit on its board while she negotiated with Fandango. AMC says that it was “entitled” to make the switch.
But exhibition execs tell me that they’re mystified by some of AMC’s recent moves, especially ones that seem to degrade the consumer experience. For example, the chain has been pulling its directory ads from newspapers — including The Los Angeles Times when their contract was up in April. That often leaves newspaper readers mystified about show times, and puts AMC at a competitive disadvantage to rivals that continue to run directory ads in the Times including Landmark, Regency, Cinemark, and Regal. To be sure, AMC had good reason to be frustrated by The Times’ high ad rates — and its insistence that theaters promote the paper’s Calendar section in the pre-show period when trailers run. “The LA Times lists TV show times for free, but has gotten by screwing exhibitors for years,” one exec says.


For SURE pulling their ads from the L.A. Times was a STUPID decision! In a town FULL of ‘Industry People’ – whom ALSO go to see Films – the Calendar Section is avidly read by those samw people. Who hasn’t spent a Sunday morning with THE TIMES – & checked out matinee times for that afternoon. The Printed word isn’t completely dead yet. Why can’t they charge another 5 cents for the popcorn & pay THE TIMES their ad rates?
Pulling their ads from the LA Times. That should have happened 5 years ago. Why would anyone look to a paper for showtimes? Do we also write letters and send via snail mail to our loved ones?
No one checks the paper to get movie showtime listings anymore. They’d have to find a newspaper, which no one has anymore either.
Damn Straight!
Most people are not in the “business”. There are a large number of people who live in the suburbs, you know, more normal people. Most of them don’t tote around smart phones or ipads… newspapers are still relevant for them. You should try it – drive out there and realize that not “everybody” lives in Brentwood. Although we live and breath who makes $$ and do projects: there are many more consumers out there who do not make watching film a weekly habit. Pity. I guess they are waiting for different sort of content than what is being shown on screen these days.
By “no one,” you mean the people of your generation who get bored after reading anything longer than 140 characters?
You mean all those millions of people that read Harry Potter, Hunger games and The Twilight Books. Yea short attention spans. How many books was The potter series? Wasn’t for those books, kids would hardly be reading at all.
Sonny Gourley is a great guy. This is not the last we will see him.