One of the sectors that the pandemic has hit the hardest, but as the saying goes, some more than others is the film market. The movie market, in general, was quasi-destroyed, since hygiene or prevention regulations prevented all exhibitors from being in operation without declaring bankruptcy. Now, it is not the same to be one of the duopolies loved by the producers, who receive more benign treatment from the latter, than to be independent exhibitors, and the former not subject them to the guarantee condition that is required of the latter, that is, that the producer be paid for the assistance of all the estimated public, regardless of the personnel that attend the capacity.
The film market, according to the classifications made by the Federal Competition Commission, is made up of two large segments: the production companies, which are the ones that run the greatest risk except in the case of large studios, such as Disney, and the exhibitors, clearly divided between large exhibitors and small exhibitors, who pay a certain amount of money for “insured” clientele, even if they ultimately do not attend.
Do the production companies ask Cinemex and Cinépolis for the insurability of their clients? According to the time that I have been studying the market, which is not little, no. And in part it is logical, since they can ensure greater audiences for the production companies.
However, production companies are required by virtue of the Federal Economic Competition Law and the Cinematography Law not to discriminate against competitors, especially when discrimination grants undue advantages, or prevents, restricts, or displaces competitors from the market. With the amount of the guarantees, and in the face of an industry in recovery, the effect of the guarantee clause for small exhibitors has quasi displacement effects, since they do not enjoy the financial strength of Cinépolis and Cinemex, which also enjoy the advantage competitive that they do not have to pay “guarantees”.
There are many small cinemas, with little economic capacity, that sometimes feed other films to the billboard or that operate in places that are not a business for Cinépolis or Cinemex. Despite representing a portion of the market, they greatly enrich the cinematographic offer, they represent a benefit for consumers, but they depend financially on the sharks of the large producers and exhibitors. Is it fair that while small competitors must pay with the guarantee clause, this clause does not touch the television duopoly even with the eye of a pin? Furthermore, the matter is not sustained from the perspective of competition law, since the guarantee clause only generates distortions in the economy to the benefit of large studios and the television duopoly and implies discrimination in treatment, together with other possible anti-competitive practices such as They can be from cross-subsidies or from increasing the rival’s prices.
It would be good if the big producers and exhibitors looked in the mirror. Do they play a game with even court? Well, all the indications point to the fact that it is not. While some perceive the profits of the cinemas (the production companies) in advance and the large cinemas run with few risks, the small cinemas run at their own expense and risk the attendance of the public, which is a random event, paying the assistance as if it were an insured asset, a fixed expense. It’s not worth it.
The collection of guarantee clauses from the large distributors to the small cinemas suppose a discriminatory treatment against the Federal Law of Economic Competition and the Law of Cinematography that benefits the film duopoly and the large film production companies for an aspect that does not produce efficiencies under the terms of the Law. Is this enough for Cofece to be encouraged to act or do we have to wait for these cinemas to go bankrupt when the damage has already been irremediably done?
