East Dulwich Picturehouse

[david_carnell]

Well maybe if they just answered my question....it's not difficult. C'mon Dulwich Picture House, yay or nay?

[Jah Lush]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For heaven's sake, please talk about the cinema on

> this thread. If you want to debate the LLW (which

> has in any case been debated at length already),

> please do so on another thread, possibly in The

> Lounge.

But we are talking about the cinema and DC's question needs to be answered because if they aren't going to pay the LLW then I shall be boycotting the East Dulwich Picture House until they do.

[Bellenden Belle]

Also - can we just establish that Picturehouse is hardly an independent - it was bought two years ago for 47 million by Cineworld

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/picturehouse-reeled-in-by-cineworld-in-47m-deal-8389607.html

[maxxi]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For heaven's sake, lets be positive - we stand a

> damn good chance of getting a cinema in ED. To

> quote (ironically) the late Mrs T - rejoice!

So those who work there should be expected to work for less than a living wage so you can go to the flicks?

[Bic Basher]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also - can we just establish that Picturehouse is

> hardly an independent - it was bought two years

> ago for 47 million by Cineworld

>

> http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/p

> icturehouse-reeled-in-by-cineworld-in-47m-deal-838

> 9607.html

Similar to Innocent Juice, which kept it's management team after being acquired by Coca-Cola. The branding like Picturehouse works so well that people believe it's an independent.

[Bellenden Belle]

Bic Basher Wrote:

> Similar to Innocent Juice, which kept it's

> management team after being acquired by Coca-Cola.

> The branding like Picturehouse works so well that

> people believe it's an independent.

Precisely, but its branding is entirely disingenuous. It trades on being a quality product and charges a premium for doing so, attracting a much sought-after demographic of customer who won't just buy a cinema ticket but are likely to have the disposable income to also spend on all the profit-making add-ons (coffee anyone?). Its "philosophy" talks about tailoring its programme for each area, providing clubs for groups such as the elderly and young parents, and delivering education work - but if you won't pay a living wage to your employees, it undermines all other "community" initiatives.

[Ron70]

As has ready been pointed out earlier in this thread, there are only some 300 businesses in London who currently pay the LLW. If you have a huge issue with the proposed ED Picturehouse not paying it don't go! However it would be fairly hypocritical to boycott the picture house and then use a business other than one of the aforementioned 300, wouldn't it?

Ron

[Zebedee Tring]

No, maxxi, don't guilt trip me please. As I said earlier, as probably virtually NO cinemas pay LLW, you would have to stop going to the cinema full stop if you take that line. Or do you believe that "robber barons of capitalism" like Picture House should pay LLW while hippy dippy independents shouldn't because they love us all and have flowers in their hair?

In any case I believe that Picture House WILL be paying LLW soon.

[motorbird83]

The plans look great. What will be the last screening time on the weekends and weekdays out of curiosity? I imagine the cinema will really bring additional business to the various restaurants etc in the area.

Regarding the LLW - please stop hijacking every thread about the cinema to talk about this. As others have side it would be totally hypocritical and unfair to single out this specific business for criticism / boycott when virtually no London businesses currently pay the LLW.

[pinecone]

People can and should be allowed to vote with their wallets. Some people disapprove of factory farming and avoid fast-food outlets which are known to use them. If you disagree with a company's policies, you have a choice.

Also, "don't feed the trolls" -- they'll get bored eventually.

[david_carnell]

We could all stop talking about it if only they'd come back on here and ANSWER THE BLEEDIN' QUESTION

[KidKruger]

Clearly it's a no.

[SteveUK1978]

What's your agenda David?

Why this project in particular and not the same challenge to the large number of other businesses that come on here to promote themselves before opening?

[Otta]

Wait, Innocence has been bought by Coke?

I'm pleased I've gone Naked now.

[david_carnell]

My agenda?! Haha. Wait - you caught me. I'm a spy for Peckham Plex seeking to undermine the newcomer!

Rot. I'm someone who cares about the pay and conditions of all including those in my community. This is a business who has a past history on the same issue (see Brixton Ritzy strikes) and are owned by a large national corporation. This isn't a market stall on NXRd. They can afford to do this. I'm interested to know if they will.

They've answered everyone else's questions - why not mine? I suspect because they know no one will like the answer.

[david_carnell]

And until they do, their thread seeking to advertise their business is going to be clogged with this issue. Just come on here and put it to bed.

[SteveUK1978]

So if the answer is no, then what?

[david_carnell]

Personally? I doubt I'd use them.

Everyone else? I've no idea. That's not my business. I'm sure they'll do well without my ?10 a few times a year.

[Bellenden Belle]

If Picturehouse did agree to pay a living wage I would make a conscious decision to choose them above others. I would actively go there instead of, say, the Curzon, their closest brand rival.

Instead of always discussing boycotting, perhaps we could talk about giving cinema-goers a postive ethical choice.

Picturehouse could seize an opportunity to be a leader in the industry and make a stand, and receive well-deserved plaudits as a result. Just as they have with other areas of work like their autism-friendly shows.

What an amazing marketing opportunity - to launch a new cinema and say that not only are we bringing new jobs to the area, but that those jobs are paid at a living wage. Suddenly a small opening could become newsworthy.

And they could say they were doing that directly in response to listening to what's important for their customers.

[DuncanW]

I'd have thought it was pretty clear that they're not committing to this, otherwise they would have said so by now.

Could anyone tell me which other businesses operating in the area commit to paying LLW - I'd be happy to give them business where I could.

[Zebedee Tring]

So what do the moaners want? No cinema at all, which would be a very bad thing for ED? No doubt, they would then feel ethically pure, right on and smug. And presumably this new cinema which they would prefer not to have would generate employment - perhaps they could explain their views to the people who would potentially be employed there.

And why are they picking on Picture House when so many other ED businesses don't pay LLD?

The negativity and student union style posturing on this MB often dismays me. And I'm a left of centre person, so I can imagine how people on the right feel.

[Otta]

I thought David had already been clear that he wouldn't use them. That is pretty far removed from not wanting a cinema in the area at all.

As he said, they'll do well regardless, but they will lose the custom of some. And as BB points out, they could be missing a trick which could gain them even more business from people that wanted a warm fuzzy glow along with their popcorn.

I still think it's more important to address why it so bloody much to live in London in the first place.

[*Bob*]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still think it's more important to address why

> it so bloody much to live in London in the first

> place.

A day out in, say, Birmingham - will explain why.

[Zebedee Tring]

This is a good subject for discussion, but not in this thread. I suggest that you start a thread in The Lounge entitled "Why is it so bloody much to live in London?", or something like that. How about "Trying to buy a house in London is near impossible"?

[Otta]

My my, aren't you the snidey one today, perhaps you could apply for a position of moderator.

But being as I said this earlier

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This should be on another thread really, leave

> this one to the cinema.

And everyone carried on talking about it anyway, then you got a bit shitty with your

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what do the moaners want? No cinema at all,

> which would be a very bad thing for ED? No doubt,

> they would then feel ethically pure, right on and

> smug. And presumably this new cinema which they

> would prefer not to have would generate employment

> - perhaps they could explain their views to the

> people who would potentially be employed there.

>

> And why are they picking on Picture House when so

> many other ED businesses don't pay LLD?

>

> The negativity and student union style posturing

> on this MB often dismays me. And I'm a left of

> centre person, so I can imagine how people on the

> right feel.

We get it, you really really really want a cinema, and couldn't really care less what the staff are paid so long as you get your cinema.

I'm not THAT fussed about it either, but you're coming across as a bit of a prick today to be honest.