MUMBAI: A recent ruling by a Bengaluru consumer court against PVR Inox’s practice of running blocks of commercials before a film’s screening has sent shockwaves through India’s cinema exhibition industry. The court ordered PVR Inox to pay Rs 20,000 in compensation to a customer whose screening of “Sam Bahadur” was delayed by 25 minutes, along with Rs 8,000 in legal costs and a hefty Rs 100,000 fine. The complainant argued that the delay disrupted his schedule and constituted misrepresentation of screening times, while PVR has denied any wrongdoing and plans to appeal the decision. The court also instructed PVR to mention actual start times for films on tickets, rather than just show start times (ads included).
While judicial rulings must be respected, there is concern that this decision may not fully account for the operational realities of running a multiplex. The cinema exhibition industry operates on a tight schedule, with only a 50-minute gap between screenings. Within this window, crucial activities such as cleaning, restocking, and technical checks must be completed to ensure a seamless movie-watching experience. Typically, around 20-30 minutes are consumed by cleaning operations alone, leaving theatre owners with limited time to run commercials and pre-show content.
The placement of advertisements before a movie is neither new nor exclusive to India. In most countries, pre-show advertisements are a standard practice, helping exhibitors generate additional revenue to sustain their business. These ad slots are often categorized into different packages, such as bronze, silver, gold, and platinum, depending on when they are played relative to the start of the movie.
For instance, in the United Kingdom, cinema-goers are accustomed to watching an average of 11 minutes of commercials before the film begins. This system allows cinemas to monetize screenings while ensuring that the audience is well aware of this industry-wide practice. The United States follows a similar model, with advertisements running for about 15-20 minutes before the start of a feature film.
Theatre chains, including PVR Inox, depend on multiple revenue streams to stay afloat. Ticket prices alone are often insufficient to cover operational costs, especially given the significant investment in infrastructure, maintenance, and technology. Average ticket prices in India are among the lowest in the world; hence, chains are dependent on food and beverage purchases by patrons to plug the gap in revenues. Advertisements play the next most important role in offsetting these expenses, ensuring that cinema halls can offer high-quality viewing experiences while keeping ticket prices competitive.
Additionally, government-mandated public service announcements and advisories—such as health warnings about smoking or messages promoting national interests—also consume valuable screen time. At one point, playing the national anthem before the movie was a compulsory practice in India, further adding to the pre-screening content duration.
The consumer court’s ruling sets a concerning precedent that could disrupt the well-established norms of the cinema industry. If similar cases emerge, multiplex operators may be forced to reduce or eliminate advertisements, leading to revenue losses and potentially higher ticket prices to compensate. This could, in turn, affect moviegoers who may have to pay more for the same entertainment experience.
Moreover, imposing rigid constraints on advertisements without considering industry norms and financial dependencies could discourage investments in multiplex infrastructure and expansion. It could also affect advertisers, for whom cinema remains a lucrative medium to reach captive audiences. I remember as a youngster how we would pester our parents to take us earlier to the cinema hall so we could learn about new launches and promotions and take advantage of them by rushing to the stores. Even the commercials during the interval were something we watched, fascinated and goggle-eyed.
While consumer rights must be protected, it is imperative that regulatory and judicial bodies take a holistic approach when adjudicating industry practices. Instead of outright bans or penalties, a more balanced solution could involve clearer communication from cinema chains about the expected duration of advertisements before a film starts. This could include displaying specific information on ticket booking platforms and at theatre entrances, ensuring transparency while allowing theatres to sustain their business model. For more than 70 years, not many objections relating to the airing of advertisements have been filed in the courts – consumer or otherwise. Let us remember: a swallow does not make a summer.
PVR Inox’s decision to appeal the ruling is a step toward safeguarding the interests of the industry. If courts begin penalizing exhibitors for long-standing practices that are globally accepted, it may only serve to disrupt an ecosystem that has been meticulously structured to benefit both businesses and audiences alike.
The cinema industry is already navigating challenges such as declining footfalls due to streaming services and high operational costs. Adding legal hurdles in the form of restrictions on pre-show or interval advertisements could prove to be a costly misstep that does more harm than good. As this case unfolds, it remains to be seen whether common sense and pragmatism will ultimately prevail.
