Booking a title heavily does not make it a hit
Judged per screening, a film given 26 shows is expected to sell more than one given 3. It has to fill the rooms it was given.
Programming
The dashboard tells an owner how full they ran. Cinema programming software has to answer what a booker asks next. CineScope's film booking analytics read your own POS ticket data and judge every title against the building it played in — not against the size of the building.
We'll walk the circuit view, your POS sync and showtime setup on a live screen. Backed by our 30-day guarantee.
Raw admissions rank cinemas by size and tell you nothing. A 1,400-seat multiplex sells more of everything than a 180-seat single screen. And every town is its own market — different catchment, different week, different idea of a full house.
So CineScope judges a film at a cinema against what the typical title at that cinema sold, on that day of the week, in that same window. An index of 1.00 means the film filled its rooms exactly as that building's typical title did. 0.60 means it drew four-tenths less than the building's own standard that week — and that is worth a phone call, because it is not "a small cinema sold less", it is "this film, in this town, is not doing what this town's other films are doing."
The benchmark is the same week, not the cinema's history. A baseline drawn from another time carries that time's season with it, and a quiet week then reads as a page of underperformers.
Judged per screening, a film given 26 shows is expected to sell more than one given 3. It has to fill the rooms it was given.
Judged by weekday, so a title that only got midweek slots is not measured against the weekend.
A dud in the biggest house is short by real empty seats, so no separate correction for capacity is needed.
A figure CineScope prints is one it can defend, and where it cannot defend one, it prints nothing. Two of the module's behaviours exist entirely for that reason.
A site whose POS feed has gone quiet reports fewer admissions than it took, and every comparison here is built on shares of admissions. That site would appear as an underperformer when the real cause is a broken sync. CineScope checks cinema POS feed health first and says so at the top of the page. A showing the POS never reported is treated as a silence, not a zero.
Both benchmarks are your own circuit. If every one of your locations is behind the national market for a title, nothing here will say so — the comparison never leaves your estate. Answering that needs an outside feed such as Comscore, Gower Street or a distributor's own numbers. CineScope states that limitation in the product rather than letting a buyer discover it, and a run with too little to compare against is marked unjudged rather than given a number.
Which cinema is under or over its own weight on a given title. The index answers it directly: 1.00 means the film filled its rooms exactly as that building's typical title did that week, and 0.60 means it drew four-tenths less than the building's own standard.
Which film has too few screenings where it is selling, and too many where it is not. Screenings sit beside demand per site, so a schedule that disagrees with its own town is visible rather than inferred.
Which show still to play is filling fast enough to justify adding another. Measured on how full it is, with lead time applied as a condition rather than a divisor, so the list holds shows a booker can still act on instead of tonight's ordinary business.
A cinema's share of a film's admissions against its share of everything the circuit sold — the "which towns like what" question. The screenings share is drawn beside the ticket share, so the confound is on the page rather than hidden inside the number.
Feed health is checked before any of the four is believed.
A connected POS. Box office analytics and presale tracking read your ticket data directly, so Programming needs a live POS feed at each site you want analysed. It is a qualifying question, and reading it here is better than discovering it in a demo. The rest of the Cinema edition tools share that feed.
Permission to see takings. Programming is permission-gated inside CineScope: it reads ticket sales, so it is limited to accounts allowed to see them, and planned schedule weeks are restricted separately again.
It does not rank cinemas by admissions, because raw admissions rank by size: a 1,400-seat multiplex sells more of everything than a 180-seat single screen. CineScope judges a film at a cinema against what the typical title at that same cinema sold, on that day of the week, in that same window. The result is an occupancy index where 1.00 means the film filled its rooms exactly as that building's own typical title did, and 0.60 means it drew four-tenths less than the building's own standard.
A connected POS. Every figure on the Programming pages is built from the cinema's own ticket sales — admissions, screenings, capacity and presales — so a site without a live POS feed has nothing to analyse. Programming is also permission-gated inside CineScope: because it reads takings, it is limited to accounts allowed to see them.
No, and CineScope says so in the product rather than letting a booker discover it in a meeting. Both benchmarks are your own circuit, so if every one of your locations is behind the national market for a title, nothing here will reveal that — the comparison never leaves your estate. Answering that question needs an outside feed such as Comscore, Gower Street or a distributor's own numbers.
CineScope checks feed coverage before anything else and states the result at the top of the page. A site whose feed has stalled reports fewer admissions than it took, and because every comparison here rests on shares of admissions, that site would otherwise read as an underperformer when the real cause is a broken sync. A showing the POS never reported is treated as a silence, not as a zero.
A baseline drawn from another time carries that time's season with it, so a quiet week measured against a busy one reads as a page of underperformers. Comparing a title against the same week at the same building keeps the season, the weather and the rest of the slate common to both sides of the comparison.
It marks the run unjudged rather than printing a number. The point of the index is that a figure it shows is one it can defend, and where it cannot, it shows nothing.
The view narrows but the benchmark deliberately stays the circuit, because a building compared only with itself is compared with nothing. Any date range works: today, 7, 30 or 90 days, 12 months, all time, a typed custom range, or fiscal-year and quarter windows for circuits that have set one.
No. It surfaces and ranks — which buildings are under their own weight, which schedules disagree with their own demand, which presale is worth another show. A human books, and the Showtime Optimizer is a planning tool for start times, gaps, turnaround and what a day could actually hold.
Yes. Programming data is reachable through the CineScope MCP server, so a booker can ask an AI assistant how a new release is doing against its usual draw at each site and get the answer from their own numbers, read-only and scoped to what that account may already see.
Pair it with guest sentiment and NPS to see how a film was received as well as how it sold, or check what a circuit pays on the pricing page.
We'll walk the circuit view, your POS sync and showtime setup on a live screen. Backed by our 30-day guarantee.