The suit complains that moviegoers are misled. They arrive at 8pm for their movie, but are forced to endure one to four minutes of ads followed by another 14 minutes of movie trailers. While the trailers aren't an issue, says Litowitz, the ads are. Brand bashing raises its head again.
Litowitz cites several famous brands as the worst offenders. (One can imagine Naomi Klein clasping her popcorn in the 22nd row, cheering him on.)
The suit seeks an injunction that will force Loews, and presumably other cinema operators, to clearly state when the ads will run and when the movie proper will start. Litowitz is particularly irked by advertising sales reps who claim they have "captive" audiences for sale. He's got a point. In a grown up world, we buy our tickets not to be captives, but to be captivated.
Not surprisingly, Loews calls the lawsuit "frivolous and completely without merit".
Normally such a lawsuit would be a sideshow in the bigger context of brand communications. But like it or not, it's yet another example of consumers fighting back. So claiming that audiences "expect" to be irritated is hardly an adequate response. That kind of thinking went out with the Rosser Reeves era. Why all the fuss?
Cinema advertising takes place in a unique environment. We have paid good money to be there. Good money to be entertained, not to be sold something. And the situation is exacerbated by the fact that ad-weary consumers who flee TV, where commercial breaks are now many times longer than they used to be, escape into a cinema only to find more of it.
Another contributing factor: the very nature of American cinema advertising is apparently pretty dire; much of it consists of cheaply-produced slides with recorded voice-overs touting local restaurants and retailers. Enough to curl anyone's popcorn. In fact, when Mark Austin and I were researching material for our new book, the whole subject of ad avoidance was fuelled by a survey of 8,000 respondents in Europe and the US. The findings were grim news indeed for brand owners, ad agencies and media owners. Cinema advertising provoked conflicting reactions. The Americans found it irritating, while British cinema audiences were far more accepting. So much so that they make a point of getting to the cinema early so they can watch the ads that are often some of the smartest, most creative brand messages on the planet.
Over the years, the Brits have been treated to such gems as the Hamlet Cigars campaign. And, of course, the famous Saatchi & Saatchi "commercial" for British Airways where an actress planted in the audience carried on a dialogue with the people on the screen. Australian cinema ads also buck convention and deliver entertainment. I vividly remember watching hilarious ads for Nando's restaurants in a Melbourne cinema. The ads were anything but ads.
Whether or not Mr Litowitz wins his case remains to be seen. However, his lawsuit against cinema ads is merely the tip of the troubling iceberg.
Consumers have had enough. Every channel of brand communication is open to abuse. But if we wish audiences to respect our brands, we should first respect our audiences.
So if British cinema audiences applaud the ads, and Americans don't, the message is clear: do better ads.
As moviegoers we have paid for the opportunity to be entertained. Therefore, if the ads are irritating, we have every right to sue the perpetrators.
After all, it would be a great shame indeed to see the curtain come down on such a potentially engaging and entertaining medium.