Free Trial Brief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 2 of 10

10:29 AM, September 23, 2003. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25

10:29:00

10:29:06 EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWERMAN: 10:29:06 10:29:06 I'm Richard Bowerman. in a matter which is versus Buena Vista I 10:29:07 10:29:09 10:29:12 10:29:17 10:29:19 and this 10 :29:22 10:29:25 10:29:30 10:29:33 10:29:37 10:29:38 10:29:41 10:29:44 10:29:49 10:29:52 10:29:56 10:30:00
10:30:06 10:30:09 10:30:11

Q.
represent

Mr.

*Wanless

the defendants

encaptioned Broadway Theatre Corp. Pictures Distribution. court,

It's pending in the district

state of Connecticut. We have noticed your deposition,

deposition commences

today as a result of numerous Peter Spodick, who is Broadway Theatre Corp.

discussions I've had with Mr.

the attorney for the plaintiff,

I understand you have a medical condition, and as a result of that condition, we've actually

scheduled this deposition to occur over a series of three days with the understanding belief, that it was our

based upon conversations with Mr. Spodick,

that it would be easier for you if we took frequent breaks and gave you opportunities to either rest or

whatever to accommodate your medical condition. A. But it's actually much more difficult. I understand from what you told us this you would prefer just to press

Q.

morning that in fact,

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 3 of 10

51 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

A. Q.

No. Again, as I understand it, many years? to go to Connecticut. you haven't been

12:00:03 12:00:08 12:00:10 12 : 00 :16 12:00:16 as to 12:00:17 12 :00:23 12:00:25 12:00:28 12
:

to~Connecticut in many, A, No.

I'd be unable

That said,

there

was no need for me to go. Do you have any understanding

Q.
were you,

Okay.

to your knowledge,

ever retained to be an

expert in the litigation that's pending in the District Court of Connecticut? A. Q. No. Do you have any understanding that you would

00:29

12 :00:31 12:00:34 12:00:38 12:00:40 12 : 00:43 12:00:47 12:00:51 12:00:54

be offering expert testimony in that litigation? A. Q. No. I can't imagine why I would. that you were

So it's just your understanding

undertaking to provide a marketing survey for York Square Cinemas. You undertook that survey, and that

survey was done at a cost of $15,000 plus expenses; correct? A. p. A. account, payments. p.
I

Correct. Have you been paid the $15,000? I have been paid several thousand dollars on

12:00:55 12 :00:55 12 :00:57 12:01:04 12:01:06

and I was told there would be installment

understand you would have no expectation to provide

12:01:07 12:01:00

25

that you would be cominq to Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 4 of 10

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 5 of 10
Consulting Econc'n,ists

NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Two LOGAN SQUARE, SUITE 800 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 TEL: 215.864.3880 FAX: 215.864.3840 INTERNET: http://www.nera.com

~flieiria

A SURVEY OF MOVIEGOERS IN TIlE NEW HAVEN AREA

by

Eugene Ericksen

October 14, 2003

Bo~s,e1s, elbi,,~,/Cwnhridge. MA / Chicc, , IL /Irhacu, NY /b~ndo,,,UK /l~s.4ngele~,CA /Madrid,S ,sir, /Ne,e Yock, NY B 0 1 Piiiladelphis, PA /San Frunciscu, CA /Svdney, Austealia / Was/,ingw,,, DC / White Plai,,v, NY ~ MMC Co~~~puny

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8 -11-

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 6 of 10

P. The Overlap of York Square and Showcases North Haven and Orange
We next considered the overlap between attendance at York Square and the Showcases North Haven and Orange. We estimate that 89.0 percent of those persons who attended York Square in the past year also attended Showcase North Haven, Showcase Orange or both (see Table 9). In contrast, among New Haven movie-goers who did not attend York Square last year 81.6 percent attended Showcase North Haven, Showcase Orange or both. In short, the overwhelming majority of persons attending York Square also attended the Showcase Cinemas North Haven and Orange. On average a York Square movie-goer also attended one or both of Showcase North Haven and Showcase Orange 5.9 times. When we reweight the data by number of visits, our results are similar. We estimate that 87.2 percent of the tickets were sold to persons who also attended one or both of the Showcase Cinemas North Haven or Orange (see Table 10). We estimate that the average ticket was sold to a person who attended one or both ofthese theaters 7.6 times in the past year.

V.

WANLESS MARKETING SURVEY
I have been asked to review a report submitted by Wanless Marketing entitled York

Square Cinema Patron Study. We have examined the survey response sheets and the transcript

of Mr. Wanless's deposition dated September 23 and September 24, 2003. After reviewing these materials, we have determined that there is cause to question both the reported findings and the conclusions drawn from the findings in this report. In general, we find that errors were committed in the survey design, data collection, and data analysis undertaken by Mr. Wanless. In addition, the interpretation of the data is not appropriate given the actual survey results. A. Mr. Wanless Is Not a Survey Expert Although he states that he considers himself "knowledgeable" in the area of survey design, the report and deposition reveal that Mr. Wanless lacks knowledge of the scientific principles of survey design and administration. There is an extensive body of literature that describes how to properly construct questions. However, Mr. Wanless does not indicate that he used this literature while creating

Consulting Economists

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8 -12-

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 7 of 10

the questionnaire for this report. Instead, he indicates that he modeled his questions after those used by the National Research Group, a research group in the entertainment business. As a result, some of his questions are unclear and the results are overly reliant on interpretation of respondent meaning. For example, the question "are you a regular patron of the York Square Cinema?" is designed in such a way that it really asks two questions in one: whether or not the respondent goes to York Square and if so, does he go regularly. In other words, included in the "no" group are both those who do not go to York Square and those who do not go to York Square regularly, there is no way to distinguish between the two groups. Moreover, the term "regularly" is likely to have been interpreted differently by different respondents. A carefully and scientifically designed questionnaire would have avoided these ambiguities in results. Mr. Wanless did not analyze the data with particular care. With over 400 responses, Mr. Wanless tabulated the results by hand and checked them himself. After submitting his report, he later sent a letter to Mr. Spodick informing him that due to hand tabulation, there may be some minor mathematical errors in the report. Indeed, our analysis of the Wanless data uncovered a number of errors in his report. Importantly, some of these errors skew the interpretation of results. For example, our analysis indicates that 48.4 percent of respondents in the "in-line" survey walk to York Square. Mr. Wanless reports that 58 percent walk. Therefore, even though many people "live close", most drive to the theater. B Mr. Wanless Did Not Follow Proper Survey Procedures The American Association of Public Opinion Research emphasizes that highly trained interviewers are necessary in order to conduct a quality survey. Mr. Wanless did not follow any of the standard procedures for administering a survey. For his interviewing staff, Mr. Wanless contacted Mr. Chris Peckover, a Yale student whose acquaintance he had made, to see if he was interested in collecting the data. Mr. Wanless had no knowledge of Mr. Peckover's field of study nor his career plans. Mr. Wanless requested Mr. Peckover recruit a few "reliable friends" to be interviewers as well. Mr. Wanless provided Mr. Peckover with verbal instructions that the interviewers had to be unbiased and ask questions in a non-leading manner. No other directions were given, nor were the interviewers supplied written instructions. Mr. Wanless had no contact with the interviewers Mr. Peckover recruited, nor was he aware of the exact number

nieiria
Consulting Economists

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8 13

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 8 of 10

-

-

that was hired. In addition, Mr. Wanless did not define a sampling plan to ensure that random respondents were included in the study. Given that the interviewers were students, with no interviewer training, it is possible that they were more likely to interview other students. There are other basic survey features that are missing from the Wanless study. There is no space on the questionnaire for an interviewer's name or ID number. In a standard intercept survey,. the interviewer is identified which allows the analyst to check for any potential bias. In his deposition, Mr. Wanless states that no pretest of the questionnaire was conducted. A pretest is necessary to make sure that the procedures work and that respondents understand the questions that you are asking. Finally, Mr. Wanless did not calculate a response rate. In fact, his deposition reveals that he does not know what a response rate is.

C. Mr. Wanless Incorrectly Combines the Results of the Two Surveys
Mr. Wanless's results are further skewed by his assumption that it is acceptable to combine the results of the "in-line" survey with the results from the "on-campus" survey. For a number of reasons, it is inaccurate to treat these data as if they are equal. Combining the results of the "on-campus" study inflates the importance of Yale students and faculty. First, by combining the results it means that Yale students had two times the opportunity to be interviewed for the survey. Yale students could be interviewed at the theater and also on campus, while movie goers who do not go to Yale University only had the opportunity to be interviewed once. This problem is further compounded by the fact that the majority of Yale students a.re not residents of New Haven year round. In fact most college students are on campus for less than nine months a year. Combining the data means that movie goers who can see films in New Haven for a portion of the year are treated the same as movie goers who can see films in New Haven year round.

D. A Number of Mr. Wanless`s Findings Confirm the Results of Our Survey
Despite the numerous technical problems with the Wanless study, it is interesting to note that a number of our important findings are comparable. Of the 280 "in-line" respondents, 164 (59%) regularly go to other theaters. Of the 175 "on campus" respondents who attend York Square, 77 (44%) regularly go to other theaters. Doing the math, about 76 percent of "in-

níeiria
Consulting Economists

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8 -14-

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 9 of 10

line" respondents who are not Yale affiliated regularly attend other theaters. Looking now at our data, if we define "regularly" as 10 or more times per year, 62 percent of York Square patrons (weighted by visits) regularly attend other movie theaters. Mr. Wanless found the "in-line" patrons were most likely to attend Showcase Orange (27%) or North Haven (11%). If we divide the numbers by the 164 who regularly attend other theaters, the percentages become 48 percent for Showcase Orange and 20 percent for Showcase North Haven. Adding these together, you get 68 percent. We got 87 percent who go to one or both at all. Since some of our respondents would not go regularly, our result is about the same. It should also be noted that some respondents in the group of 164 "attend other theaters regularly" left the name of the theater blank. Finally, while five miles does not seem "very close," the "in-line" survey found that 69 percent lived within five miles of York Square. Our figure is 60 percent. The difference is easily accounted for by the overrepresentation of students during the school year. E. Mr. Wanless Incorrectly Counts the Number Who Only Go to York Square In his report, Mr. Wanless states that 47 percent of respondents go only to York Square. This number is inaccurate on a number of accounts. First, as mentioned above, this number is biased as it incorrectly combines the results of the two surveys and thus overestimates the importance of the Yale student population. Taking just the "in-line" survey, Mr. Wanless reports that 41 percent of respondents only go to York Square. We tabulated the responses from his survey and calculated that in fact, only 34 percent of respondents only go to York Square, regularly. Again it is important to note that this 34 percent does not include people who occasionally go to other theaters, in fact, a number of respondents list theaters in addition to the York Square. It is conceivable that a significant portion of this 34 percent does go to other theaters. Of the 98 patrons that do not go to other theaters regularly, one third also do not go to York Square regularly. This means that only 67 respondents are regular York Square patrons that do not regularly go to other theaters. Since three of these respondents mention other theaters, we can say that the percent of respondents that are regular York Square patrons that do not go to other theaters is 22 percent.

nieiria
Consulting Econot,,ists

Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU

Document 84-8
-

Filed 11/10/2003

Page 10 of 10

15

-

When we look carefully at these respondents, we find that 19 or 30 percent state that they use the car as one mode of transportation to York Square. Moreover, when asked what films they would like to see at the York Square Cinema, only 17 respondents mentioned that they wanted to see big budget or conimercial films. Therefore, the results of the Wanless study indicate that 17 out of 289 respondents or 6 percent only go to York Square, walk to the theater and would like to see more commercial films shown.

VI.

CONCLUSION
Our survey data indicate that when we looked at customers of York Square we found

that more than 85 percent also see movies at one or both of the Showcase Cinemas Orange or Showcase Cinemas North Haven. The data also show that the majority of movies seen by New Haven residents living in the Downtown and Outlying areas are at theaters other than the York Square Cinema. Generally, the majority of York Square customers, whether Downtown or Outlying, affiliated with Yale University or not, also go to see movies at the Showcase Cinemas Orange and the Showcase Cinemas North Haven.

~ i.~
Eugene P. Ericksen

/1

October 14, 2003

n~eiria,
Consulting Econontists